Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-3 word biblical commentary
Main Bibliography
1. Commentaries (in chronological order; cited by name hereafter)
Jerome. S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera I: Opera exegetica 4: Commentariorum in Hezechielem libri xiv. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latine 75. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974.
Calvin, J. Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Tr. T. Myers from the French edition of 1565 and the Latin edition of 1617. 1849; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.
Ewald, H. Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Krabbe, 1841.
Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Ezechiel. KEH Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847.
Fairbairn, P. Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863.
Smend, R. Der Prophet Ezechiel. KEH 2nd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1880.
Cornill, C. H. Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886.
Davidson, A. B. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. CBSC Cambridge: CUP, 1892. Revised by A. W. Streane, 1916.
Orelli, C. von. Das Buch Ezechiel. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Munich: Beek, 1896.
Bertholet, A. Das Buch Hesekiel. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1897.
Toy, C. H. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1899.
Kraetzschmar, R. Das Buch Ezechiel. HKAT Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900.
Skinner, J. The Book of Ezekiel. Expositor’s Bible. New York: Armstrong, 1901.
Jahn, G. Das Buch Ezechiel auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1905.
Redpath, H. A. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. WC London: Methuen, 1907.
Gaebelein, A. C. The Prophet Ezekiel: An Analytical Exposition. New York: Our Hope, 1918.
Rothstein, J. W. “Das Buch Ezechiel.” In Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr, 1922.
Herrmann, J. Ezechiel. KAT Leipzig: Deichert, 1924.
Cooke, G. A. The Book of Ezekiel. ICC New York: Scribners, 1936.
Bertholet, A., and Galling, K. Hesekiel. HAT Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1936.
Keil, C. F. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Ezekiel. Tr. J. Martin from 1882 German edition. 2 vol(s). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.
Steinmann, J. Le Prophète Ezéchiel. LD 13. Paris: Cerf, 1953.
Fohrer, G., and Galling, K. Ezechiel. HAT 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1955.
Born, A. van den. Ezechiël uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1954.
May, H. G. “Ezekiel.” IB New York: Abingdon, 1956. 6:39–338.
Ellison, H. L. Ezekiel: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
Auvray, P. Ezéchiel. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1957.
Muilenburg, J. “Ezekiel.” In Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. London: Nelson, 1962. 568–90.
Ziegler, J. Ezechiel. Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1963.
Lamparter, H. Zum Wächter Bestellt: Der Prophet Hesekiel. BAT Stuttgart: Calwer, 1968.
Stalker, D. M. G. Ezekiel: Introduction and Commentary. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM, 1968.
Zimmerli, W. Ezekiel 1:A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Tr. R. E. Clements from 1969 German edition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
———. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Tr. J. D. Martin from 1969 German edition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Wevers, J. W. Ezekiel. NCBC Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Feinberg, C. L. The Prophecy of Ezekiel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
Taylor, J. B. Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969.
Eichrodt, W. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Tr. C. Quin from 1966 German edition. OTL Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.
Brownlee, W. H. “Ezekiel.” In Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. C. M. Laymon. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. 411–35.
Carley, K. W. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. CBC Cambridge: CUP, 1974.
Mosis, R. Das Buch Ezechiel. Vol. 1. Chaps. 1,1–10, 44. Geistliche Schriftlesung 18/1. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1978.
Craigie, P. C. Ezekiel. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.
Greenberg, M. Ezekiel 1–20. ab Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Fuhs, H. F. Ezechiel 1–24. Neu Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984.
Andrew, M. E. Responsibility and Restoration: The Course of the Book of Ezekiel. Dunedin: University of Otago, 1985.
Gowan, D. E. Ezekiel. Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
Lane, D. The Cloud and the Silver Lining. Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1985.
Brownlee, W. H. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC Waco, TX: Word, 1986.
Wilson, R. R. “Ezekiel.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 652–94.
Hals, R. M. Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Stuart, D. Ezekiel. Communicator’s Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1989.
Blenkinsopp, J. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville: Knox, 1990.
Boadt, L. “Ezekiel.” In New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. 315–28.
Vawter, B., and Hoppe, L. J. A New Heart: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
2. Texts, Versions, and Textual Studies
Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes. OBO 50.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Bewer, J. A. “Textual and Exegetical Notes on the Book of Ezekiel.” JBL 72 (1954) 158–68.
Boadt, L. Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. BibOr 37. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980.
Brockington, L. H. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1973.
Driver, G. R. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Bib 19 (1938) 60–69, 175–87.
———. “Hebrew Notes on Prophets and Proverbs.” JTS 41 (1940) 162–75.
———. “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems.” Bib 35 (1954) 145–59, 299–312.
———. “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.” In L’Ancien Testament et l’Orient. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1957. 123–61.
———. “Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960) 112–31.
Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Vol. 5. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912.
Elliger, K. “Liber Ezechiel.” In Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelstiftung, 1967/77.
Fohrer, G. “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel.” ZAW 63 (1951) 33–53.
Freedy, K. S. “The Glosses in Ezekiel 1–24.” VT 20 (1970) 129–52.
Herrmann, J. “Stichwortglossen im Buche Ezechiel.” OLZ 11 (1908) 280–82.
Jahn, P. L. G. Der griechische Text des Buches Ezechiel nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 15. Bonn: Habelt, 1972.
Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerashalmi and the Midrashic Literature. London; New York: Trübner, 1903.
Johnson, B. Hebräisches Perfekt und Imperfekt mit vorangehenden we. ConBOT 13. Lund: Gleerup, 1979.
Joüon, P. “Notes philologiques sur le texte hébreu d’Ezékiel.” Bib 10 (1929) 304–12.
Levey, S. H. “The Targum to Ezekiel.” HUCA 46 (1975) 139–58.
———. The Aramaic Bible (The Targums): Ezekiel. Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1987.
Lust, J. “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript.” CBQ 43 (1981) 517–33.
———. “Exegesis and Theology in the Septuagint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‘Pluses’ and Ezek. 43:1–9.” In VIth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. SCS 23. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. 201–32.
McGregor, L. J. The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985.
Reider, J. “Contributions to the Scriptural Text.” HUCA 24 (1952/53) 85–106.
Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic: Vol. 3. The Latter Prophets. Leiden: Brill, 1962.
Tov, E. “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel.” ETL 62 (1986) 89–101.
Van Dijk, H. J. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre: A New Approach. BibOr 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968.
Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. An lntroduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Ziegler, J. Septuaginta vol. XVI, 1. Ezechiel (2nd ed.) mit einem Nachtrag von D. Fraenkel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Zorell, F. Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954.
3. Major Monographs and Articles
Bettenzoli, G. Geist der Heiligkeit: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des QDŠ-Begriffes im Buch Ezechiel. Quaderni di Semistica 8. Florence: Istituto di Lingistica e di Lingue Orientali, Universita di Firenze, 1979.
Boadt, L. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” In Ezekiel and His Book, ed. J. Lust. 182–200.
Bodi, D. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991.
Busink, Th. A. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: 2. Von Ezechiel bis Middot. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Carley, K. W. Ezekiel among the Prophets: A Study of Ezekiel’s Place in Prophetic Tradition. SBT 2.31. London: SCM, 1975.Cassuto, U. “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel.” In Biblical and Oriental Studies. Tr. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. 1:227–40.
Davis, E. F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. JSOTSup 78. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.
Fishbane, M. A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford UP, 1985.
———. “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel.” Int 38 (1984) 131–50.
——— and Talmon, S. “The Structuring of Biblical Books: Studies in the Book of Ezekiel.” ASTI 10 (1976) 129–57.
Fohrer, G. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel. BZAW 72. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952.
Fretheim, T. E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Friebel, K. G.
“Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Their Meaning and Function as
Non-Verbal Communication and Rhetoric.” Diss., University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1989.
Garscha, J. Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionkritische Untersuchung von Ez 1–39. Bern: Lang, 1974.
Gese, H. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Tübingen: Mohr, 1957.
Graffy, A. A Prophet Confronts His People. AnBib 104. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1984.
Haran, M. “The Law Code of Ezekiel xl–xlviii and Its Relation to the Priestly School.” HUCA 50 (1979) 45–71.
Herntrich, V. Ezechielprobleme. BZAW 61. Griessen: Töpelmann, 1932.
Herrmann, S. Die prophetischen Heilswartungen im Alten Testament. BWANT 5. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965.
Hölscher, G. Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. BZAW 39. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924.
Hossfeld, F.-L. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. FB 20. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977.
Jeremias, J. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentliche Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965.
Joyce, P. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. JSOTSup 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.
Klein, R. W. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1988.
Krüger, T. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
Kutsch, E. Die chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches. OBO 62. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1985.
Lang, B. Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel. 2nd ed. SBS 7. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981.
———. Ezechiel: Der Prophet und das Buch. ErFor 153. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981.
Levenson, J. D. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976.
Liwak, R. “Uberlieferungeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches: Eine Studie zu postezechielischen Interpretationen und Komposition.” Diss., Bochum, 1976. Lust, J., ed. Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1986.
Messel, N. Ezechielfragen. Oslo: Dybwad, 1945.
Miller, J. W. Das Verhältnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1955.
Mullo Weir, C. J. “Aspects of the Book of Ezekiel.” VT 2 (1952) 97–112.
Parker, R. A., and Dubberstein, W. H. Babylonian Chronology 626 b.c.-a.d. 75. Providence: Brown, 1956.
Parunak, H. V. D. “Structural Studies in Ezekiel.” Diss., Harvard, 1978.
Pohlmann, K.-F. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den älttesten Texten. BZAW 202. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.
Rabenau, K. von. “Die Entstehung des Buches Ezechiel in formgeschichtlicher Sicht.” WZ (1955/56) 659–94.
Raitt, T. M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Reventlow, H. G. Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition. BZAW 82. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1962.
Rooker, M. F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. JSOTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.
Rowley, H. H. The Book of Ezekiel in Modern Study. Manchester: John Rylands Library, 1953.
Schmidt, M. A. “Zu Komposition des Buches Hesekiel.” TZ 6 (1950) 81–98.
Simian, H. Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels: Form- und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez. 6; 35; 36. FB 14. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974.
Smith, D. L. The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone, 1989.
Talmon, S. “The Textual Study of the Bible—A New Outlook.” In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1975. 321–400.
Vogt, E. Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel. AnBib 95. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1981.
Westermann, C. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Tr. H. C. White. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
———. Prophetische Heilsworte im Alten Testament. FRLANT 145. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987.
Willmes, B. Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ez 34: Studien zum Bild des Hirten im Alten Testament. BBET 19. Frankfurt: Lang, 1984.
Wilson, R. R. “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness.” VT 22 (1972) 91–104.
Woudstra, M. H. “Edom and Israel in Ezekiel.” CTJ 3 (1968) 21–35.
Zimmerli, W. “Das Phänomenon der ‘Fortschreibung’ im Buche Ezechiel.” In Prophecy. FS G. Fohrer, ed. J. A. Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.174–91.
———. I Am Yahweh. Tr. D. W. Stott, ed. W. Brueggemann. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
Introduction
Bibliography
Boadt, L. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” In Ezekiel and His Book, ed. J. Lust. 182–200. ———. “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37.” HAR 12 (1990) 1–21. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Clements, R. E. “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis.” In Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. FS P. R. Ackroyd, ed. R. Coggins et al.. Cambridge: CUP, 1982. 119–36. ———. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ez 1–24.” In Ezekiel and His Book, ed. J. Lust. 283–94. Fechter, F. Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremvölkersprüche im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 208. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Gosse, B. “Le recueil d’oracles contre les nations d’Ézéchiel.” RB 93 (1986) 535–62. ———. “Ézéchiel
35–36, 1–15 et Ézéchiel 6: la desolation de la montagne
de Séir et le renouveau des montagnes d’Israël.” RB 96 (1989) 511–17. Levenson, J. D. Review of Ezekiel 2 by W. Zimmerli and Ezekiel 1–20 by M. Greenberg. Int 38 (1984) 210–17. Nobile, M. “Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17–32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38–39) im Lichte der Endredaktion.” In Ezekiel and His Book, ed. J. Lust. 255–59. O’Connor, M. “The Weight of God’s Name: Ezekiel in Context and Canon.” TBT 18 (1980) 28–34. Scalise, P. D. J. “From Prophet’s Word to Prophetic Book: A Study of Walther Zimmerli’s Theory of ‘Nachinterpretation.’ ” Diss., Yale, 1982. Tuell, S. S. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.
Tr. translation, translator(s), translated by, transpose(s)
KEH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
ed. edited, edition(s), editor
CBSC Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CUP Cambridge University Press
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
WC Westminster Commentary
KAT E. Sellin (ed.), Kommentar zum Alten Testament
ICC International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh/New York: Clark/Scribner’s)
HAT Handkommenter zum Alten Testament or Handbuch zum Alten Testament
LD Lectio divina (Paris: Cerf)
IB The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1951-57)
BAT Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments
SCM Student Christian Movement
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
OTL Old Testament Library (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Westminster)
Rev. revised, reviser, revision, or reverse
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
ab Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday)
WBC Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word)
FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans)
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Freiburg [Sw]/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia (Rome: PBI)
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
OLZ Orientalische Literaturzeitung
ConBOT ConB Old Testament Series
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies
MT The Masoretic Text [of the Old Testament] (as published in BHS)
LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Waltke B. K. Waltke, “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970) 212–39.
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology (London/Naperville, IL: SCM/Allenson)
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JOST] Supplement Series
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW]
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
AnBib Analecta biblica (Rome: PBI)
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament (Stuttgart:Kolhammer)
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Neukirchen: Neukirchener)
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Biblical Studies
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (Stuttgart/Wurzburg: Echter/KBW)
ErFor Ertäge der Forschung
HSM Harvard Semitic Museum or Harvard Semitic Monographs
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium (Leuven/Gembloux: Leuven UP/Peeters)
WZ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift (ThZ)
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck)
BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
CTJ Calvin Theological Journal
FS Festschrift, volume written in honor of
The Nature of the Commentary
This is the second introduction I have written to a commentary on Ezekiel. The first may be found in the volume Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC
29, Dallas: Word, 1990), which was written before the present volume.
This introduction is a continuation of the former one and so does not
repeat some of its basic content.
The
editors’ preface has briefly indicated the format of the series. I have
found that it provides invaluable guidelines for working through the
material step by step. The main and sectional bibliographies attest the
academic fellowship in which I have been privileged to share. My
reading has provided a stimulating circle of commentators and
researchers. Each member of this scholarly seminar, so to speak, has
made a contribution to the commentary. Those to whom I am especially
grateful are Cooke for his careful grammatical observations, Cornill
for his pioneering text-critical research, Ehrlich for his knack of
looking at the text in a different way, Zimmerli for his labors in form
and redaction, and Greenberg for his sense of pervasive literary unity.
A host of historical-critical commentaries from Ewald onwards have been
used, with earlier scholarship rather meagerly represented by Jerome
and Calvin. A number of the judgments in more recent commentaries can
be traced back to an earlier time, and some care has been given to
crediting authors with their particular innovations. Behind such
attributions there sometimes lies the chagrin of finding that a
personal insight had been anticipated long ago, only to be forgotten by
subsequent scholarship.
Behind
the translation lies a number of drafts and changes of mind. It
reflects the end product of study, incorporating the conclusions argued
for in later sections of the commentary. Two principles underlie the
translation. First, I have indulged in an old game I used to play with
passages from Demosthenes and Cicero in student days, imagining that
they wrote in English and that I had to translate their Greek or Latin
back to this original. Second, this quest for naturalness necessarily
has often been limited by a demand for closer accord to the Hebrew made
by the structural and exegetical comments. The fivefold variety of
rendering displayed by the reb in 18:21–28
(“renounces,” “mend his ways,” “turn,” “give up,” and “turn his back”)
captures the stylistic variation of the English language, but at a
certain cost. It would not suit a translation for a detailed commentary
on the Hebrew text.
As for the grammatical and text-critical observations in the Notes,
the former speak for themselves. As to the latter, written in response
to an editorial mandate to interact with the apparatus of BHS,
I confess my old-fashioned adherence to the classical tradition. Where
the ancient witnesses to the text raise discordant voices, it has been
deemed necessary to give priority to the perspective that best accords
with the context and with which the origin of secondary readings may be
best explained. Qumran has proved unrewarding to the student of the
text of Ezekiel, not only because of the paucity of extant fragments
but also because they only reflect early forms of the MT. The LXX in its earliest form constitutes the most important witness alongside the MT.
In the sophisticated task of assessing differences, the critic must not
only explain the contextual superiority of the preferred reading but
support it by giving a plausible explanation of the origin of the
presumed textual error. One must express personal disappointment at the
final report of the Committee of the Hebrew Old Testament Project,
sponsored by the United Bible Societies (D. Barthélemy, ed., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 3). Its conclusions read more like the pleas of a defense attorney for the MT
than the verdicts of a judge arbitrating among several textual
authorities. Tribute must be paid, however, to its comprehensive
reviews of scholarly opinion and presentations of the textual evidence.
These textual annotations represent a second attempt at working on chaps. 1–19. The manuscript of the late W. H. Brownlee’s commentary that underlay Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28, Waco, TX: Word, 1986), which this volume replaces, lacked specific sets of textual notes until chap. 16,
and it fell to me to produce them. While in this volume I have
sometimes been able to quote that work, in general the paucity and
predictability of the old notes reveal the inadequacy of attempting
textual study without the full support of other perspectives of
studying the material. Good textual judgments depend on a broad
understanding that only other angles can provide.
These other angles are pursued in the section Form/Structure/Setting.
Form criticism has proved of inestimable value in clarifying the
function and mood of the text. Rhetorical criticism, in the
Muilenburgian tradition, has exposed the contours and twists and turns
of the material and has also clarified the dimensions of the literary
unit. Redaction criticism of a moderate kind has identified the stages
of literary development that underlie the present form of the text.
This commentary endeavors to stand midway between those of Zimmerli and
Greenberg. To speak in generalizations, the
former concentrates on the parts and the latter on the whole. Zimmerli
can be accused of creating a canon within a canon, with his concern for
a primary text and subsequent commentary (cf. Childs, Introduction
369–70; Scalise, “From Prophet’s Word” 185–89). Yet, if the proper
focus of a commentary is on the final form of a redacted text, it is
also legitimate and necessary to inquire how it reached that form. The
following essay on the growth and structure of the literary tradition
seeks to supply answers, putting together the jigsaw pieces presented
in the course of the two commentaries on Ezekiel.
The Comment
section in the commentary is a step-by-step outworking of conclusions
reached in the two previous sections. It shows the correlation between
the details of the material and makes smaller exegetical decisions
along the way. The Explanation
section sums up the agenda(s) of the literary unit. Actually it is the
best place for the less experienced reader to begin. It often draws
concentric circles around the particular unit, the rest of Ezekiel, the
OT,
and even the biblical revelation as a whole. J. D. Levenson, in the
course of a review of Zimmerli’s and Greenberg’s commentaries, asked
whether a commentary should include an element of preaching (Int
38 [1984] 212). This commentator would answer that, since these are
prophetic texts, his task is to uncover the preaching to their own
constituency in which the texts are engaging. To this end the NT references often supplied in the Explanation are an attempt partly to take Christian readers back to an understanding of the OT passage and partly to make them realize its spiritual affinity to areas of their own religious world.
Overall,
the attitude taken in this commentary is that of a friend to Ezekiel
and his book, an honest friend but an understanding one. This
empathetic attitude is perhaps an obvious one for a moderately
conservative seminary professor to whom the book is part of the
canonical scriptures. It is also one that has been learned from several
years’ experience of attempting to teach Judaism from the inside to
Christian classes and to speak up for it in response to suspicion and
misunderstanding. If the commentator does not speak up on behalf of
Ezekiel and the book that bears his name, no one else will bother to do
so.
There
is an interim quality about every commentary. After a while one can
glance through any example of the genre and determine its date without
looking at the front. The bibliography stops at a certain point, and
the questions posed to the text reflect a certain period. Nonetheless,
this has been a good time to write on Ezekiel. Zimmerli and Greenberg
have left readers of their respective commentaries wondering, and the
time is ripe for a rapprochement between their approaches, rather than,
as some might think, setting up entrenched battle lines between
literary and historical-critical claims. Moreover, recent years have
been productive ones for research into Ezekiel, as the fruit of the
1985 conference at Louvain, Ezekiel and His Book
(edited by J. Lust), exemplifies. The time has been opportune to catch
up with recent academic contributions and to correlate them with older
scholarship.
The Growth and Structure of the Literary Tradition
The dates attached to some of Ezekiel’s messages indicate a prophetic ministry that lasted twenty-two years from 593 to 571 b.c. (1:2; 29:17). The visions, signs, and
oracles associated with this ministry seem to fall into two groups. The
first corresponds to the period from 593 to about 586 and was initially
intended for a constituency of upperclass Judeans who had been deported
by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 and settled in a labor camp in the Babylonian
heartland. To this threatened group Ezekiel had to bring the even more
threatening news that Jerusalem was to finally fall and that Judah’s
political existence was to be terminated. A second group of visions,
signs, and oracles was evidently delivered to a wider audience,
enlarged by Judeans exiled after the fall of the capital. Now Ezekiel
had a happier message. As heir of a prophetic tradition of a stark
sequence of judgment and salvation in Yahweh’s dealings with the
covenant people, he was able to envision return to the land by
historicizing the tradition. Darkness was to be followed by the dawn of
a new and far better day.
This tradition of judgment and salvation is reflected plainly in the book. Chaps. 1–24 are basically given over to oracles of judgment, while chaps. 33–48
are given over to messages of hope. Ezekiel’s public oracles are
preserved in a distinctly literary form that stands at a distance from
the communal setting in which they were given. His prophetic ministry
is subsumed under the reported voice of God. Even the exiles’ remarks
are refracted through a divine oracle.
There
are only two voices in Ezekiel’s book, the prophet’s and God’s. Those
who consult and oppose Yahweh and Ezekiel never speak. The words of the
latter are doubly framed; Ezekiel quotes Yahweh quoting them in
refutation. (O’Connor, TBT 18 [1980] 28)
Two of the people’s comments about Ezekiel’s public prophesying speak of him as “he” (הוא, 12:26; 21:5[20:49]),
but any impression of him as a person in his own right is largely
hidden behind his testimony to the God whose word he brings. Apart from
his objection to carrying out part of a symbolic act in 4:14 and his anguished cries of intercession in 9:8 and 11:13, little humanity is allowed to obtrude into the message given by the Lord whose dutiful servant he is.
Ezekiel
had plenty of time to compile his prophetic reports, which incorporated
his oracles of judgment in the seven years until 586 and his oracles of
salvation in the period more than twice as long, from 586 to 571. There
is no reason to dismiss the plain import of the message-reception
formula that characteristically prefaces the oracles that inaugurate
literary units, “I received a message from Yahweh.” Nevertheless, there
are indications that Ezekiel’s own work has been amplified by other
contributions that are claimed as equally partaking of prophetic
authority by continued use of Ezekiel’s messenger formula, “This is the
Lord Yahweh’s message,” and divine-saying formula, “so runs the oracle
of the Lord Yahweh.” For this reader, the book contains persistent
evidence of literary units that are made up of three layers: a basic
oracle, a continuation or updating that stays relatively close to the
basic material, and a closing oracle that stands apart from the earlier
two pieces. The conclusion to be drawn is that the first two layers are
to be ascribed to Ezekiel and the third to heirs of his work who were
concerned to preserve it and adapt it to the needs of a succeeding
generation (cf. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ez 1–24” 290, 292).
No
long period of time seems to have elapsed in the composition of the
book. While Ezekiel ministered in person to the pre-587 prisoners of
war and to the first generation of post-587
exiles, the later adaptations that appear in the book seem to have been
made among the second generation of exiles. Nothing in the book
reflects return to the land as a historical fact. Nor is there any hint
that the Persian empire has succeeded the Babylonian. Whereas Second
Isaiah placed the fall of Babylon within the historical setting of the
rise of Cyrus in the 540s, the book of Ezekiel is remarkably reticent
about any such prospect. Only 21:35–37 (30–32)
speaks in guarded tones about its future fall, which was actually to
occur in 539 and to lead to Cyrus’s edict of 538 permitting Judeans to
return to the land. There are two features in the book that may
indicate the timing of the later process of redaction. If the dating of
the final vision “in the twenty-fifth year of our exile” (40:1),
along with the use of the number twenty-five and its multiples in the
ensuing measurements of the new temple, implicitly refers to a year of
jubilee, the fiftieth year (cf. 46:17),
one may imagine a striking implication. Was the end of the exile
understood by the second-generation heirs of Ezekiel’s message to be
due to take place in the early 540s (597–547)? A similar extrapolation
may be drawn from some other numerical evidence. The exile is put into
a forty-year period in the supplementary 4:6, while the same time frame is applied three times to an exile for the Egyptians in the redactional passage 29:11–13.
For the Judeans this would spell out the same endpoint (587–547). It is
not difficult to infer that these apparent clues to the time of the
return would have stimulated keen interest in the book during the 550s,
which resulted in the canonical version of the book of Ezekiel.
It
is the book, of course, that has canonical authority, and not the
prophet himself, although the oral and literary work of the prophet
provides its substance. The book shows evidence of much editorial
activity, undertaken by Ezekiel and his successors, in terms of both
arranging oracles and supplementing them to speak to later concerns of
the exiles. The edited book invites its readers to look back at the
prophet’s ministry and to apply its challenge and assurance to their
own hearts and lives. The intended readers or hearers were living in
the closing years of the exile, and by faith we modern heirs of this
scripture may stand alongside them and overhear what they heard first.
This issue of the setting of the book as a whole is important.
Zimmerli, while concerned with the whole book, was inclined to stand
beside Ezekiel and then look beyond to the redactional sequel to which
the book bears witness. This is a natural procedure, especially since
the book urges us to look back at Ezekiel’s prophesying. Yet its real
invitation is to engage in a re-reading of the record from a later
standpoint, and it is only as we endeavor to respond to that invitation
that we honor the book.
Chapters 1–24
This
first major section is substantially made up of three collections of
messages of judgment. There is a pattern of compilation that runs
through much of the book: a vision followed by an account of
interpreted sign acts (1:1–3:15/3:22–5:17; 8:1–11:25/12:1–20; 37:1–14/15–28).
In each of the first two cases there is a continuation with oracles of
judgment. The emphasis on divine judgment indicates its continuing
value for the exiles. One purpose it must have had was to give meaning
to the recent abyss into which the Judeans had been plunged by loss of land
and nationhood. This literary purpose in recounting the interpretation
of the tragedy in terms of judgment finds indirect confirmation in the
oracles of 22:23–31 and 36:16–23,
retrospective post-587 oracles in which we overhear Ezekiel explaining
in God’s name the necessity of such punishment for the Judeans. Such a
purpose may also be deduced from the injunction to the exiles never to
forget their shameful past that led to their judgment (16:54, reinforced in 36:31; 39:26).
Each of the three judgment collections begins with a report of a momentous event that is precisely dated. The date in 1:1,
with its enigmatic reference to “the thirtieth year,” has been
redactionally brought into line with the chronological system used
elsewhere in the book, along with details about Ezekiel necessary for
second-generation readers (1:2–3a).
The report of Ezekiel’s seeing a vision of Yahweh as a God of judgment
and hearing his commission as a prophet of judgment in 1:1–3:15 is followed by a divine mandate to engage in ominous sign-acts and an interpretation of the final sign, in 3:16a, 22–5:17, and then by a pair of judgment oracles rhetorically addressed to “the mountains of Israel” in chap. 6 and by a series of content-related oracles that announce disaster for Judah and Jerusalem in chap. 7 (cf. Boadt, “Rhetorical Strategies” 188–90). No mention has yet been made of 3:16b–21, which will be discussed later together with similar material.
The
second collection begins with a date that verifies the experience of a
second vision and also a consultation by the leaders, which marked the
community’s recognition of Ezekiel as a prophet. To 8:1–10:22; 11:22–25 has been added a report of a separate temple vision in 11:1–13. It serves to confirm the visionary message of accusation and judgment in a temple setting that appears in chap. 9. The two sign-acts of 12:1–20
duly follow, which forecast the defeat and exile of the people of
Jerusalem. At an earlier stage in the history of the book, the sequel
was probably a series of judgment oracles against Jerusalem, which
pounded nail after nail into its coffin. These are the oracles of 14:12–23 and 15:1–8, which have been combined into a single literary unit, and the single oracle of 16:1–43bα.
The third collection has no initial vision but takes its cue from chap. 8 by prefixing a date to a second visit from the leaders, who are given no comforting word but only a message of judgment (20:1–26, 30–31). Two sign-acts are incorporated into a group of oracles that celebrate a “sword” of judgment (21:1–32 [20:45–21:27]). Further oracles follow, two concerning the coming fall of Jerusalem (22:1–16, 17–22), to which a third was added in confirmation (22:23–31), and then the complex of oracles about Jerusalem’s fate in chap. 23, which in its final parts has been augmented from chap. 16. The two oracles of chap. 24
forecast the fall of the now besieged capital. Its initial date is not
relevant to the basic structuring of the three collections. Its style
does not accord with the dates elsewhere in the book, and it was
evidently added at a later stage.
It is obvious from the gaps in the foregoing treatment of chaps. 1–24
that there is other material not yet accounted for. This material
breaks the previous pattern and has a pattern of its own, a double
agenda of assurance and challenge. It seems to have been editorially
inserted, whether by Ezekiel himself or by the redactors of the next
generation. The first case is 3:16b–21, which either represents a custom-made digest of 33:1–20
or presses into service an existing variant of it. Post-587 readers are
shown that the message of radical judgment sounded in the context still has a certain relevance (cf.
Scalise, “From Prophet’s Word” 238–39). Two alternatives now faced the
exiles, life or death, and from Ezekiel and his book came every
incentive to choose the life and salvation Yahweh intended for them.
With that opportunity came a spiritual and moral challenge. The God who
had judged his people was to be the judge of the willful unbelievers
and apostates among his people.
The second instance occurs in 11:14–21,
which functions as a literary response to Ezekiel’s passionate cry
deprecating God’s wholesale destruction of his people. One of the
prophet’s oracles of salvation is placed here to assure exilic readers
of Yahweh’s positive purposes for them in terms of restoration to the
homeland and moral and spiritual renewal. It has a sting in its tail, a
warning in v 21 that those whose hearts and habits were opposed to God would encounter due retribution.
A further updating in the second collection of Ezekiel’s oracles of judgment occurs in 12:21–14:11.
This is a complex of oracles, both pre-587 and post-587, that are
concerned with prophecy and the issue of who constituted the people of
God. The complex probably arose as backing for Ezekiel’s stand against
sinister religious features rife in the post-fall community. It boosted
his stock by appealing to the historical validation of his old oracles
of judgment despite the doubts of those who first heard them. In the
setting of the book, this complex reminds exilic readers of the
potential of a right relationship with the covenant God and the promise
of return to the land; it also warns that certain aberrations could
lead to forfeiture and urges repentance. The God who had carried out
the radical judgment earlier prophesied by Ezekiel was not to be
trifled with. He would carry out any necessary judgment among his
people, a relative judgment to be sure, but one to be taken seriously.
The latter part of chap. 16 continues in a similar vein. The oracle in vv 43bβ–58
is Ezekiel’s updating of the pre-587 message of judgment. That message
had come true, but the post-587 exiles dare not shrug off its
recriminations. In a short list of urban centers of vice, Jerusalem
trailed miserably behind Sodom and Samaria. The exiles are called to
repent of so deplorable a history and, when they returned to the land,
to take back with them a spirit of deep regret. The second-generation
supplement in vv 59–63
supports Ezekiel’s sardonic challenge with an exhortation written from
a straightforward and theological perspective. It gives a reminder of
the grace of God that was to be manifested in the coming act of
salvation and uses it as an extra lever to stimulate repentance over
past sins. A strong sense of divine mercy and of human undeservedness
must mark future life in the homeland.
The complex of oracles in 17:1–19:14 strikes the same notes of assurance and challenge, while reinforcing the lesson of national judgment. In chaps. 17 and 19,
four oracles of judgment have the downfall of the Davidic dynasty as
their theme. At their heart is set a second-generation promise of royal
restoration that elevates the language of the negative oracles to a
glorious reversal and takes its spiritual cue from Ezekiel’s oracle
concerning the reestablishment of a united kingdom under a restored
monarchy (37:15–24a). Such good news had moral implications. Chap. 18,
a post-587 call to repentance that Ezekiel had issued to the first
generation of exiles, is deliberately inserted into the complex,
immediately after the oracle of salvation. It shows that the prospect
of salvation must exert a moral magnetic
force on its would-be heirs, which they resisted at their peril.
Eschatological life and renewal were God’s gifts to the repentant.
In
the third collection of judgment oracles, one does not have to wait
long for the mingled notes of assurance and challenge to be sounded
again. The pre-587 oracle of 20:1–26, 30–31 sets before the deportees God’s ancient forecast of national exile (v 23). Its terms “nations” and “countries” are echoed in v 32: by now the exile was a reality. Vv 32–44
give the assurance of a second exodus to the promised land and a
glorious, God-honoring occupation. Yet there was a somber factor to
reckon with. The divine judgment against Dathan and Abiram in the
wilderness long ago would find a typological parallel in a partial
judgment for the exiles. “Rebels” among them would be barred from
entering the land (vv 36–38).
Moreover, the exiles who did return must never forget how little they
deserved the lavish grace of God, in the light of their own former, now
forgiven, sins (vv 43–44).
Later in the collection a simple note of assurance is struck. The oracle against the Ammonites in 21:33–34(28–29) reflects not a pre-587 situation but their taunts against the Judeans when Jerusalem fell (cf. 25:3). It assures of vindication and justice. Moreover, the chronologically later element in vv 35–37(30–32) dares to predict doom, in a loud whisper, for Babylon. At the end of chap. 24,
there appears a contextually appropriate hint of better times to come.
After the imminent downfall of Jerusalem, Ezekiel would no longer
function as a sign of divine judgment (v 24) but as a sign of grace (v 27).
Chapters 25–32
The
book of Ezekiel falls into line with the other major prophetic books in
devoting a substantial section to a series of oracles against foreign
nations. The series falls into two nearly equal halves, chaps. 25–28 and 29–32. The first half pays little attention to dating: only one date occurs, in 26:1. The role of this half is to give assurance to the exiles. The hint at the end of chap. 24 that the tide of suffering would turn with the fall of Jerusalem is developed. Chap. 25
basically consists of two pairs of short post-587 oracles directed
against Ammon and Moab, Edom and Philistia. The first is amplified by a
further anti-Ammon message in vv 6–7. The emphasis on Ammon recalls the message of assurance in 21:33–34(28–29). In both places Ammon seems to function as a representative symbol of local hostility to Judah. All the oracles in chap. 25
level against their ethnic objects accusations of unjust animosity. The
first oracle supplies a sympathetic summary of the tragedy of 587:
profanation of the temple, desolation of the land, and exile for the
people (25:3). The first consequence functions as an echo of 24:21,
where Yahweh declared: “I will profane my sanctuary.” In the new
context of salvation, the mockery of the nations over Judah’s judgment
was a reprehensible act.
The same note of sympathetic assurance is struck in the first oracle against Tyre, in 26:2.
If the date is correctly transmitted and understood, already during the
siege of Jerusalem Tyre was hoping to make political capital out of
Jerusalem’s downfall (cf. Gosse, RB
93 [1986] 554–55). This reason for its judgment is evidently
determinative for the collection of oracles against Tyre or its king in
26:1–28:19. In chap. 26 the oracle of vv 4–6 finds an interpretive restatement in vv 7–14. Two later oracles forecasting its eventual fall to Babylon follow in vv 15–18 and 19–21.
They must antedate the end of the thirteen-year siege of Tyre in 573.
The same can be said of the satirical lament over the ship of Tyre in 27:1–11, 25b–36. It has been skillfully amplified in vv 12–25a with a list of Tyre’s trading products and partners, which was adapted into a cargo list for the doomed ship. The oracles in 28:1–10, 11–19
are directed against the king of Tyre. Ezekiel’s intent in uttering the
anti-Tyre oracles, apart from the first, was probably to quash the last
vestiges of optimism among his fellow exiles and to show that
resistance to Nebuchadnezzar ran counter to Yahweh’s will. Editorially,
however, they appear to function as implicit oracles of salvation,
taking their cue from 26:2.
The last oracle is addressed to Sidon, in 28:21–23. The supplement in v 24 intends to give the gist of 25:1–28:23 (cf. Fechter, Bewältigung 265–69). The description of all Israel’s neighbors as showing contempt (שׁאט) deliberately recalls the use of the noun in 25:6, 15,
as a frame for these chapters. The exiles are promised that Yahweh
would put an end to the harassment of their ethnic neighbors.
What follows in 28:25–26
is the first of three editorial summaries that appear in the book. The
context of the punishment of the nations is related to general positive
themes to which Ezekiel’s teaching pointed: the international
vindication of Yahweh in restoring Israel to the land promised to Jacob
and the prospect of living secure and productive lives. This was the
substance of the God-given hope to which the exiles should cling.
The second half of the collection of foreign oracles in 29:1–32:16 has a different message. Boadt’s characterization of chaps. 25–32 as “indirect words of hope” (HAR
12 [1990] 5) belongs properly to the first half. The target of all the
oracles in this second group is Egypt, to which Judah had appealed for
help against the Babylonian attack (cf. 17:15; Jer 37:5, 11). A host of dates are supplied, for each of the basic oracles except 30:1–9.
Looking back, one can see the earlier dates in the book marching slowly
and inexorably toward the siege of Jerusalem. From this perspective,
the redactional date of the beginning of the siege in 24:1 is apposite, and so is the date of 26:1.
In the present group of oracles, the dates cluster around the period of
the siege, like vultures circling over a dying beast. The last two, in 32:1, 17, fall just beyond the time when news of the fall of the capital reached Ezekiel in exile (cf. 33:21). The date in 29:17 follows the different agenda of its associated oracle.
The basic oracles call into question the hope of the exiles that judgment could be averted by Egyptian help. Thus 29:2–6a, associated with the date 7 January 587, forecasts defeat for the pharaoh Hophra, the chaos monster of the Nile. Vv 6–9a
seem to reflect the situation a little later, when he proved unable to
sustain his military attack. The redactional supplement in vv 9b–16 continues a message of Egypt’s fate of desolation but tones it down somewhat to an exile of forty years (cf. 30:23, 26)
and restoration to national mediocrity. This fruit of theological
reflection appears to set the fate of Egypt within a wider framework of
revelation. In 29:17–21
an oracle dated in 571 and associated with the ending of the prolonged
siege of Tyre serves as a confirmation that Egypt would eventually
fall. The undated 30:1–9 probably belongs to the same time as 29:1–6a; the oracle speaks of the downfall of Egypt in terms of the day of Yahweh. A later oracle appears in 30:10–12, in which Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt is promised. Vv 13–19 are about the destruction of Egypt’s cities, a literary continuation that echoes the two previous passages.
30:20–26
reflects news of the Babylonian repulse of the Egyptian attack on the
besiegers and promises further misfortune for Egypt at Nebuchadnezzar’s
hands, even exile. The oracle in 31:1–18
about the pharaoh in the role of a cosmic tree that is cut to the
ground is dated two months later. It attacks the exiles’ continuing
obsession that he would resume the attack and drive the Babylonian
troops away from the capital. V 18
may function as a literary summary of the chapter. The last two dated
oracles are set after the news of the fall of Jerusalem had reached the
exiles. They were probably meant to stamp out glowing embers of an
optimistic hope that Egypt would not tolerate Babylonian control of
Judah. 32:1–16 returns to the motif of the chaos monster, while vv 17–28 compare Egypt with other national has-beens. In a redactional epilogue, vv 29–32, other states are included in Egypt’s fate. The reference to “the commanders of the north” in v 30 appears to encompass the Gog war of chaps. 38–39
(Nobile, “Gog-Perikope” 256–57). We seem to be returning to the note of
assurance sounded in the first half of the collection of foreign
oracles. Predominantly, however, the original tone of accentuating
Judah’s judgment is maintained. It may be summed up in words from 29:16: “Never again will the community of Israel have [in Egypt] an object of trust to which they turn.”
A
topic that increasingly confronts the reader of the collection is the
grim description of Tyre’s and Egypt’s dooms in terms of Sheol (26:19–21; 28:8; 31:14, 15–18; 32:18–32). It functions as negative backing to the positive message of life for Israel in the succeeding chapters.
Chapters 33–48
The
fall of Jerusalem changed the nature of Ezekiel’s prophesying from
national judgment to salvation. After the darkness of the old age of
radical sin and punishment, a new age was to dawn. The oracles of
salvation that celebrate its imminent coming are presented in chaps. 33–48.
First place is given to a combination of assurance and warning, which continues the tone of the series of insertions in chaps. 1–24.
In terms of the literary history of the book, these insertions
constitute a backward projection that takes its cue from chaps. 33–34. Chap. 33 enshrines at its heart, in vv 21–22, the date when news of Jerusalem’s fall reached the prophet. As 24:27 had predicted, it marks the end of the sinister silence of dumbness imposed on the prophet in 3:26–27. It is followed by an oracle of indirect hope for the exiles in vv 23–29,
assuring them that they had not forfeited their inheritance of the
land. This assurance is qualified by a message of relative judgment for
the jubilant exiles in vv 30–33. The continuity and contrast between the two periods of Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry are well expressed by the echo of 2:5 in 33:33.
At the outset of the book, the fulfillment of radical judgment of God’s
people was to prove Ezekiel’s role as a true prophet to the Judeans
deported in 597. By this means they would “know that there has been a
prophet among them.” Now a new criterion is offered, execution of the
relative judgment that would befall irresponsible members of the exiled people. The same qualified assurance occurs in 33:1–20. It is dominated by the motif of life, in vv 10–16. Even as it offers God’s gracious gift of life in vv 10–11, it challenges to moral responsibility in vv 12–20. These messages serve as examples of Ezekiel’s description as a watchman to warn and preserve the people (vv 1–9).
The same combination of assurance and challenge appears in 34:1–22, in the course of a collection of messages that uses the metaphor of sheep. The oracle in 34:1–16
counterposes the phases of national judgment and salvation. The Judean
kings had been bad shepherds who had lost God’s sheep. Yahweh was to be
the good shepherd who would rescue the exilic strays. Vv 17–22,
on the other hand, describe strife among the contemporary flock of
exiles and promise divine intervention to effect discriminating
judgment on the oppressors and salvation for their victims.
The rest of the chapter consists of successive redactional supplements that develop the sheep imagery. Vv 23–24 theologically round off the earlier messages with a reminiscence of the sign of the scepter in 37:1–24a and its editorial continuation in 37:24b–25.
Yahweh would appoint a royal undershepherd for the sheep, who would do
good work, unlike the preexilic monarchy. The second supplement in vv 25–30
depicts the land as green pastures, secure and fertile for the
returning people. It majors in an eschatological claim of the blessings
of Lev 26:1–13. The claim represents a literary reversal. In chaps. 4–6 Ezekiel had appealed to the curses of Lev 26
and claimed that they would be implemented in the coming national
judgment. Now there is a corresponding concern to lay claim to the
covenant blessings as ingredients of the era of salvation. The final
supplement, in v 31, provides a literary conclusion for the unit, rather like 31:18; it defines the covenant relationship in terms of God’s flock.
The gift of the land remains the focus of attention in 35:1–36:15. Reversal of past judgment in future salvation marks the complex of two oracles in 35:1–36:8. Underlying both is Ezekiel’s oracle against the mountains of Israel in chap. 6. Features from that judgment oracle reappear at the beginning of each of these messages (see Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 171–72; Gosse, RB 96 [1989] 511–17). Judgment was to veer toward Judah’s enemy Edom (35:1–14).
This first message is an oracle against a foreign nation that finds a
place here as a foil for the restoration of God’s people. It is later
in origin than the oracle against Edom in 25:12–14: it reflects Edomite incursion into Judean territory. Yahweh reassuringly claims back the land for his people to enjoy (36:1–8). The echo of the blessings of Lev 26:9 in 36:9–11 aligns the passage with the redactional material of 34:25–30. V 12 serves to introduce vv 13–15, in which the curse pronounced on the land in Num 13:36 is lifted.
36:16–23 counterpoints previous judgment of Israel’s sins with the prospect of salvation, this time in the direct fashion of 34:1–16.
Return from exile is given a theological grounding in the restoration
of honor to Yahweh’s name, which had been tragically desecrated by his
people’s exile. Vv 24–31 are a redactional development, a theological meditation on the implications of vv 16–23
that gathers together a number of Ezekiel’s themes from elsewhere. It
was the necessity of Yahweh’s self-vindication that undergirded the
promise of restoration—not any merit in Israel. The sins that caused
the predicament of exile must arouse a sense of shame and repentance both now and back in the land (cf. 16:52, 58; 20:43–44). Yahweh would give his people a fresh moral start (cf. 37:23). He would create in them a new spirit of obedience (cf. 11:19–20). So the land, earlier defiled by sin according to vv 17–18,
would blossom again, and the people, duly cleansed, would be able to
live in it again. The land is the renewed focus of the two pieces in vv
33–36 and 37–38, which promise repopulation and fertility for the now ruined land.
The themes of the restored people’s sharing in God’s spirit and their consequent obedience, promised in v 27, prompted further elaboration. Ezekiel’s vision of revived bones and his interpretive oracle of salvation in 37:1–13 are used to elucidate the role of God’s spirit, as the repetition of 36:27a in 37:14 shows. Then the obedience of 36:27b, which reappears in 37:24b, has light shed on it by Ezekiel’s sign and oracle of 37:15–24a.
The passage functions as another literary flashback. It is used to show
that a means of establishing authority and order would be provided by
the restoration of a united kingdom under its messianic king.
The redactor, after using two of Ezekiel’s messages, provides in vv 25–28 a summary of the major themes of the preceding four chapters (cf. Boadt, HAR 12 [1990] 15–16). It resumes and advances the positive summary of 28:25–26. It also exhibits a feature we have seen before, echoes of the blessings of Lev 26:4–13. This intertextuality permits a reference to the new temple in vv 26–27, taken from Lev 26:11. The themes of temple, covenant people, king, and land are clearly intended as a heading for chaps. 40–48, which will be used to elaborate them.
Readers have to wait a while, since chaps. 38–39
now intervene. The theme of the account of Gog’s invasion and defeat is
secure habitation in the promised land. It functions as an extended
echo of that motif in 34:25–28, where it is derived from Lev 26:5; it appears in the account at 38:8, 11, 14 and also in 39:26. There would have been good reason to have inserted it at the end of chap. 34. Presumably a sense of the continuity of the established chaps. 34–37 (cf. Boadt, HAR
12 [1990] 15–16) prevented such a placement. Instead, it is put after
the series of salvation oracles, a second-best position following
mention of peaceful habitation in the land at 37:25–26.
The promise of secure habitation is put to the test by envisioning a
worst-case scenario. If the new Israel was to be safe from its local
neighbors (28:26),
how about the possibility of another great foreign invasion? Such
worries on the exiles’ minds are allayed. The Gog account checks the
security system and finds it more than adequate.
If
the Gog account has been redactionally set in its present position,
there is little reason to deny Ezekiel’s voice and hand in much of it.
It has certainly been reworked. Its three basic parts of 38:1–9; 39:1–5 and 17–20 were first elaborated with a series of parallel treatments at 38:10–16; 39:6–7, 9–10, and 21–22, and further amplified by 38:18–23; 39:11–16.
At least the first set of accretions probably goes back to the
prophet’s own editing. At three points the text stands at a
considerable distance from its context: in 38:17, where Gog’s invasion is claimed as the fulfillment of older, historically based prophecies; in 39:8, where Gog’s defeat is viewed as a similar fulfillment; and in the epilogue of 39:23–29. The redactional epilogue is reminiscent of 28:25–26. Both passages deliberately turn from a subsidiary issue to summarize mainstream concerns. This one rehearses Yahweh’s
past judgment of Israel for its sins, which merited exile and must stay
fresh in the people’s memories. It reaffirms the promise of return to
the homeland and recapitulates Israel’s prospect of secure habitation.
Moreover, it celebrates the coming vindication of Yahweh in the world
and his perpetual commitment to his people. If a busy person wanted a
reliable digest of the book of Ezekiel, one could not do better than
commend the three nutshells of 28:25–26; 37:25–28; and 39:23–29.
The only major theme not explicitly mentioned is that of the relative
judgment that would discriminate between members of the exilic
community. However, the moral responsibility it was meant to instill is
included in the conviction that the sins that led to the exile should
be taken seriously even after return to the land.
The visions that begin in chap. 40
exhibit a feature that occurred in the salvation oracles, the reversal
of a particular judgment in a manifestation of salvation. They function
as a reversal of the vision of the old temple and its consequent
destruction and Yahweh’s abandonment described in chaps. 8–11. As in 8:1, a date is supplied in 40:1, and the fall of Jerusalem is explicitly recalled. Motifs from 8:1–3 are resumed in 40:1–3, and from 8:3–4 in 43:2–5. Chaps. 40–48 fall into three parts. The first, 40:1–42:20,
is a visionary tour of the area of the new temple that Yahweh would
create for his people (“I will put my sanctuary in their midst,” 37:26). Its description has been amplified at an early stage by 40:38–46a, a supplement about rooms adjacent to some of the gatehouses described in vv 6–37, and by 42:1–14, a further supplement about two sets of rooms in the western area described in the course of 41:5–15a. There is another, misplaced, supplement in 41:15b–26 that carefully describes the woodwork of the temple. One expects it to appear after 40:47–41:4, and its misplacement may reflect its comparative lateness.
The account of the visionary tour continues in 43:1–46:24, now associated with extensive divine commands. The divine glory that left the old temple in chaps. 10–11
returns and fills the new temple. Ezekiel is commanded to transmit to
the exiles the transcendent holiness of this temple not made with
hands, with which the old one is adversely compared, in order to
stimulate among them a shaming sense of the distance that lies between
Yahweh and their sinful selves. The prophet is ordered to pass on the
ensuing regulations for the organization of the temple. The description
of the design of the altar in 43:13–17, which paves the way for regulations for its dedication in vv 18–27, may be editorial. Ezekiel is portrayed as cultic founder in 43:18–22 and also later in 45:18–20a; 46:13–14, a not incongruous role for the prophet of priestly lineage. Two short visionary narratives and related commands feature in 44:1–5; v 5 serves as a heading for 44:6–46:18 (or 24).
The regulations that follow fall into three sections, relating to (1) the two-tiered system of priests and Levites in 44:6–16 and the holy lifestyle of the priests in 44:17–31, (2) the economic maintenance of personnel and sacrifices in 45:1–17, and (3) the cultic procedures of rites and offerings in 45:18–46:15.
The prime place is given to the issue of temple personnel, to whom
degrees of holiness manifest in the description of the temple are
applied. The result is the tiers of Zadokite priests and of Levites.
This crucial differentiation brings to a climax a literary process of
gradual development. 40:45–46a merely mentioned two types of priests, those with altar duties and those with duties in the temple area. Then in 46:19–20, 24 “priests” are differentiated from “those who serve in the temple area,” while in 42:13–14 there is a one-sided mention of “the priests who have access to Yahweh” or “the priests.” In 45:4–5
the lower group has assigned to it the title “Levites,” in contrast
with “the priests who serve in the sanctuary and have access to serve
Yahweh.” Finally, in the vehement oracle of 44:6–18, the latter are called Zadokite priests, a development that was duly incorporated into 40:46b; 43:19; and 48:11.
A key factor behind the assignation of the high priestly family to this
role may have been that priests of such exalted rank could best reflect
the holiness of God and his temple. This last stage must antedate the
restoration of full worship in the rebuilt postexilic temple in 516,
where the priests were simply “the sons of Aaron” (Clements, “The
Ezekiel Tradition” 130–31). Did Ezekiel advocate only the first stage
of 40:45–46a or himself begin to apply gradations in the holiness of the temple to its personnel? The stage of 42:13–14 and 46:19–20, 24
probably reflects Ezekiel’s later work, since they are set in contexts
that otherwise seem to be so characterized. The redactional full-blown
system is evident in 44:6–16
and is made the controlling prescription both here and in other
passages that it infiltrated. The outworking of holiness in the lives
of the priests described in 44:17–27, 31 may have had a wider application at an earlier stage of the text.
A noticeable feature of the subunit 43:1–46:24 is a particular stratum concerning the נשיא “head of state” that appears in 44:3; 45:21–25; 46:1–12, to which may have been attracted less specific material in 46:10–18 and 45:16–17 and also in 45:8, 9 (see Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 253). This type of material is represented among a number of sections that have their own agendas. Ezekiel’s use of מלך “king” for Israel’s future ruler in 37:24 and the redactional translation to נשיא “head of state” in 37:25b suggests a late origin for it (cf. 34:24). However, it may be significant that the prophet appears to have described preexilic monarchs as both מלכים “kings” (43:7–9) and נשיאים “heads of state” (e.g., 22:6).
The role of 44:28–30 appears to be to anticipate the next section concerning economic maintenance of the cult; it may have been a continuation of 44:6–16, with which it has some similarity. 45:1–8 has been drawn from 48:8–22,
which it summarizes. It defines the land holdings of the two grades of
temple personnel and of the head of state. The injunction about correct
weights and measures in 45:10–12 governs the contributions of vv 13–17, more specifically those of vv 13–14. The last section, 45:18–46:15,
contains regulations about the rites and offerings of the temple. Like
the previous section, it begins with Ezekiel’s role as founder of the
new cult in 45:18–20a, which the related 46:13–14(15) may have continued at an earlier stage. In 45:21–25; 46:1–12 the cultic role of the head of state comes to the fore. The material about his use of land in 46:16–18 seems to build a bridge to the issue of apportionment of the land described in chaps. 47–48. The visionary journey that closes the subunit in 46:19–24 has close links with 42:1–14 and so may be assigned to a second stage of Ezekiel’s work.
The material devoted to the reoccupation of the land in chaps. 47–48 opens in 47:1–12 with a visionary scene and tour that are more exotic than the previous ones. A careful description of the land’s frontiers in 47:13–23 leads into an account of its allocation in 48:1–29
that depends upon the former passage. The issue of temple personnel
reemerges within it. A reflection of the third logical stage in the
literary development we noticed earlier has been updated to the fourth within v 11. A later supplement that presupposes 48:1–29 appears in the closing vv 30–35. Developing v 16,
it honors the new Jerusalem. It provides both a positive reversal of
the old city that Yahweh had justly abandoned to its fate and
continuity with the restored capital that featured in 16:53, 55, 61.
This
attempt to steer a course through the complex material of the book is
necessarily tentative. The prophetic book seems to bear witness to a
process of literary arrangement and amplification that the prophet
himself initiated. Not all the evidence in the text has been set out in
this survey. In chap. 10, for instance, Ezekiel’s reflections about the cherubim appear to give way to later reflections in vv 9b–12, 16–17, and 22aγb.
The intent of the completed book was to prepare the exiles to receive
God’s gift of new life in the land. The theological summaries of the
book in 28:5–6; 37:25–28; and 39:23–29
show an awareness of the complexity of the book and a need to help
readers grasp the essential themes. On the verge of the promised land,
Ezekiel’s messages were re-read as sources of coherence for Israel’s
bewildering history and as humbling insights into the people’s evil
potential and into God’s sheer grace in taking them back to fellowship
with himself. Nor had Yahweh’s role as judge ended in 587 b.c..
The prospect of a discriminating judgment is repeatedly woven into
happier promises and set alongside accomplished threats of past
judgment. Beyond such warnings, there is a concern to contrast the
national judgment that lay in the past with the prospect of national
salvation, as the many cases of deliberate reversal indicate, both
within literary units and in the course of the book. The redactors
developed the prophet’s salvation oracles. They followed his lead in
grounding judgment in the covenant curses of Lev 26
by claiming fulfillment of its blessings in the coming age of
salvation. They had an eye for theological reflection on themes
broached in Ezekiel’s oracles of salvation. On a religious plane, they
felt impelled to take a definitive stand on the issue of the priesthood
of the new temple, in application of the principle of divine holiness.
Other priestly interests are manifest in the details of the temple
woodwork in 41:15b–26 and of the cleansing of the land in 39:11–16.
Ezekiel’s
redactors may justly be called disciples. The relatively short time
that seems to have elapsed between Ezekiel’s own prophetic ministry
with tongue and pen and the completed book indicates that they knew him
intimately and empathized with his aims. They too probably came from
priestly families, and they claimed the same prophetic authority as
their master. With literary skill they updated the book for the next
generation, keeping alive the prophet’s ministry to the people of God.
Ezekiel’s Visionary Call (1:1–3:15)
Bibliography
Adams, R. M. Heartlands of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1981. Albright, W. F. “The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preëxilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel.” JBL 51 (1932) 77–106. Allen, L. C. “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel 1.” VT 43 (1993) 145–61. Auvray, P. “Ézéchiel i–iii: Essai d’analyse littéraire.” RB 67 (1960) 481–502. Barr, J. “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament.” In Congress Volume, Oxford 1959. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. 31–38. Barrick, W. B. “The Straight-Legged Cherubim of Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1:7a).” CBQ 44 (1982) 543–50. Block, D. I. “Text and Emotion: A Study in the ‘Corruptions’ in Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1:4–28).” CBQ 50 (1988) 418–42. Bodi, D. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. 82–94. Budde, K. “The Opening Verses of the Book of Ezekiel.” ExpTim 12 (1900) 39–43. ———. “Zum Eingang des Buches Ezechiel.” JBL 50 (1931) 20–41. Driver, G. R. “Ezekiel ii.6: ‘Sitting upon Scorpions.’ ” JTS 35 (1934) 54–55. ———. “Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision.” VT 1 (1951) 60–62. Ephal, I. “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries b.c. Maintenance and Cohesion.” Or 47 (1978) 74–88. Fretheim, T. E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. 79–106. Garfinkel, S. “Of Thistles and Thorns: A New Approach to Ezekiel ii.6.” VT 37 (1987) 421–37. Grave, C. “The Etymology of Northwest Semitic ṣapānu.” UF 12 (1980) 221–29. Greenberg, M. “The Use of the Ancient Versions for Understanding the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezek. ii.1–iii.11.” In Congress Volume, Göttingen 1977. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 131–48. ———. “Ezekiel’s Vision: Literary and Iconographic Aspects.” In History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. 159–68. Gruenwald, I. Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” ZAW 77 (1965) 297–323. Halperin, D. J. “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint.” JBL 101 (1982) 351–63. ———. The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 16. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1988. Höhne E. “Die Thronwagenvision Hesekiels: Echtheit und Herkunft der Vision Hes. 1,4–28 und ihrer einzelnen Züge.” Diss., Erlangen, 1953. Houk, C. B. “A Statistical Linguistic Study of Ezekiel 1, 4–3,11.” ZAW 93 (1981) 76–85. Keel, O. Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4. SBS 84/85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. 125–273. Kutsch, E. Die chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches. OBO 62. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Landsberger, B. “Akkadisch-Hebräische Wortgleichungen.” In Hebräische Wortforschung. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 170–204. Lang, B. “Die erste und die letzte Vision des Propheten: Eine Überlegung zu Ezechiel 1–3.” Bib 64 (1983) 225–30. Lentzen-Deis, F. “Das Motiv der Himmelsöffnung in verschiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments.” Bib 50 (1969) 301–27. Lind, W. A. “A Text-Critical Note to Ezekiel 1: Are Shorter Readings Really Preferable to Longer?” JETS 27 (1984) 135–39. Long, B. O. “Prophetic Call Traditions and Reports of Visions.” ZAW 84 (1972) 494–500. ———. “Reports of Visions among the Prophets.” JBL 95 (1976) 353–65. ———. “Prophetic Authority as Social Reality.” In Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 3–20. Low, A. A. K. “Interpretive Problems in Ezekiel 1.” Diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985. Marquis, G. “Word Order as a Criterion for the Evolution of Translation Technique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel.” Textus 13 (1986) 59–84. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Newsom, C. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985. Nobile, M. “ ‘Nell’ anno trentisimo …’ (Ez 1,1).” Anton 59 (1984) 393–402. Ohler, A. “Die Gegenwart Gottes in der Gottesferne: Die Berufungsvision des Ezechiel.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 79–89, 159–68. Olmo Lete, G. del. La vocación del líder en el antiguo Israel: Morfología de los relatos bíblicos de vocación. Bibliotheca Salamanticensis 3:2. Salamanca: Universidad Pontifica, 1973. 289–319, 369–406. Oppenheim, A. L. “Assyrian-Babylonian Religion.” In Forgotten Religions, ed. V. Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. 63–79. Parrot, A. Nineveh and Babylon. London: Thames and Hudson, 1961. Parunak, H. V. “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s Mar˒ot˒ Elohim.” JBL 99 (1980) 61–74. Procksch, O. “Die Berufungsvision Hesekiels.” In Karl Budde zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. BZAW 34. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1920. 141–49. Quiring, H. “Die Edelsteine im Amtsschild des jüdischen Hohenpriesters und die Herkunft ihrer Namen.” Sudhofs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und die Naturwissenschaften 38 (1954) 193–213. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Hand of Yahweh.” VT 21 (1971) 244–51.———.“Ṣāphôn in Job 26,7.” Bib 56 (1975) 554–57. Savignac, J. de “Note sur le sens du terme ṢÂPHÔN dans quelques passages de la Bible.” VT 3 (1953) 95–96. Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. London: Thames and Hudson, 1955. Sprank, S., and Wiese, K. Studien zu Ezechiel und dem Buch der Richter. BWANT 3:4. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926. 26–73. Taylor, S. G. “A Reconsideration of the ‘Thirtieth Year’ in Ez. 1.1.” TynBul 17 (1966) 119–20. Tucker, G. M. “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of the Canon.” In Canon and Authority, ed. G. M. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 56–70. Vogt, E. “Ṣāfôn = caelum nubibus obductum.” Bib 34 (1953) 426. ———. “Der Nehar Kebar: Ez 1.” Bib 39 (1958) 211–16. Waldman, N. M. “A Note on Ezekiel 1:18.” JBL 103 (1984) 614–18. Weinfeld, M. “כבוד kabod.” TWAT 4:23–40. Westermann. C. “כבד kbd schwer sein.” THAT 1:794–812. Wiseman, D. J. “Books in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament.” In Cambridge Ancient History of the Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Cambridge: CUP, 1970. 1:30–48. Wilson, R. R. “Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination.” JBL 98 (1979) 321–37. ———. “Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel.” Int 38 (1984) 117–30. York, A. D. “Ezekiel 1: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” VT 27 (1977) 82–98. Zadok, R. “The Nippur Region during the Late Assyrian, Chaldaean and Achaemenian Periods, Chiefly according to Written Sources.” Israel Oriental Studies 8 (1978) 266–332.
Translation
1In
the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth of the month,
while I was living among the exiles by the Kebar Canal, the skies
opened, and I saw a divine vision. 2“On the fifth of the month” refers to the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s period of deportation. 3The priest Ezekiel son of Buzi received a communication from Yahweh by the Kebar Canal in Chaldea.
I felt Yahweh’s hand on me there, 4and
I saw something to which my attention was drawn. It was a storm wind
coming from the north. It consisted of a huge cloud and a blazing fire;
radiance surrounded the cloud. Out of it—out of the fire—appeared
something that gleamed like amber.
5Out of it materialized four figures that looked like living beings. Their appearance was as follows: they had human forms, 6but each one had four faces, and each had four wings, 7while their legs were straight, with feet like calves’ hooves; they gleamed like burnished copper. 8However, human arms and hands were beneath their wings on each of their four sides. 10This was what their faces looked like: they each had a human face, and
the four of them also had a lion’s face on the right side, and the four
had a bull’s face on the left side, and the four had an eagle’s face. 11Their
wings were extended upwards; they each had a pair of wings brushing
against their neighbor’s and another pair covering their bodies. 12Each moved straight ahead: they could move forward wherever the spirit wanted to go, without changing direction as they moved.
13Out
of the living beings appeared what looked like burning, fiery coals.
The fire looked like torches moving to and fro between the living
beings: the fire had radiance, and from the fire 14what looked like lightning flashes darted hither and thither.
15As
I looked, my attention was drawn to a wheel on the ground beside the
living beings; there was one for each of the four of them. 16The
wheels looked like gleaming gold topaz; they all four had the same
shape, and their construction seemed to be that each had another wheel
inside it. 17When
the wheels moved forward, they could move in the direction of any of
their four sides, without changing direction as they moved. 18As for their rims, which were awesomely high[?], their rims were completely covered with eyes in the case of the four of them. 19When
the living beings moved forward, the wheels would move beside them; and
when the living beings ascended from the ground, the wheels could
ascend too. 20Wherever the spirit wanted to move forward, they would do so, and the wheels 21would
move forward when they did; and when they stopped, they would stop too.
When they ascended from the ground, they would ascend alongside them,
because the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.
22Above
the heads of the living beings was something shaped like a platform
that gleamed like crystal; it extended over their heads above them. 23Beneath the platform, their wings kept in formation beside their neighbors’, while their other pair covered their bodies. 24I
could hear the noise made by their wings: it sounded as loud as
floodwaters, as loud as the Almighty. When they moved, there was a
tumultuous noise like the sound of an army; 25when they stopped, they would drop their wings.
26Above
the platform over their heads was what looked like lapis lazuli in the
shape of a throne, and on the throne-shaped object was what looked like
a human form, above it. 27I
saw something that gleamed like amber from the semblance of his waist
upwards, while from the semblance of his waist downwards I saw what
looked like fire. There was radiance all around him: 28the
surrounding radiance looked like the rainbow that appears in the clouds
on a rainy day. That was what the figure who is associated with the
glorious presence of Yahweh looked like. At the sight I threw myself
down on my face.
Then I heard a voice: it was somebody speaking. 2:1“Human one,” he said to me, “stand on your feet so I can speak with you.” 2The spirit entered me and made me stand on my feet. Then I heard somebody speaking to me. 3“Human
one,” he said to me, “I am sending you to the rebellious community of
Israel, who till this day have rebelled against me, both they and their
forebears. 4It
is to the descendants, whose facial expression is more insensitive and
whose wills are more stubborn, that I am sending you. You are to tell
them, ‘This is the message of the Lord Yahweh,’ 5whether
they listen or fail to do so, rebel community as they are, and they
will realize that there has been a prophet among them. 6You,
human one, are not to be afraid of them nor intimidated by their facial
expression, as well you might when nettles and thorns confront you and
you sit on scorpions. Do not be afraid of their words nor intimidated
by their facial expression, rebel community as they are, 7but speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to do so, rebels as they are.
8
“You, human one, are to listen to what I tell you, rather than being a
rebel like that rebel community. Open your mouth and eat what I present
to you.” 9I looked, and my attention was drawn to a hand stretched out toward me, holding a book scroll, 10which he unrolled in front of me. It had writing on the front and back, with the heading “Laments, mourning and woe.” 3:1Then he said to me, “Human one, eat this scroll and go, speak to the community of Israel.” 2I opened my mouth, and he fed me with the scroll, 3saying
to me, “Human one, give your stomach the opportunity to feed on this
scroll I am presenting to you, and let your belly be filled with it.” I
ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey.
4“Human one,” he then said to me, “come, go to the community of Israel, and use my very words in speaking to them. 5For if you were sent to a people whose speech is incomprehensible, whose language is difficult to grasp, 6or
to a host of peoples whose speech is incomprehensible, whose language
is difficult to grasp and whose words you could not understand—if they
were the ones I sent you to, they would listen to you. 7But
the community of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, because
they are unwilling to listen to me, since the whole community of Israel
has stern brows and hard hearts. 8I now make your face as stern as theirs are and your brow as stern as their brows: 9as
hard as diamond, which is harder than flint, I am making your brow. You
will not be afraid of them nor intimidated by their facial expression,
rebel community as they are. 10Human one,” he told me further, “take to heart all my words that I speak to you, listening with both ears. 11Then
come, go to your fellow nationals in exile and speak to them. Tell
them, ‘This is the message of Yahweh,’ whether they listen or fail to
do so.”
12Then
the spirit lifted me up, and behind me I heard a noise, a loud,
pulsating sound, as the manifestation of Yahweh’s glorious presence
rose from where it was situated. 13The
loud, pulsating sound was the noise made by the wings of the living
beings as they kept in formation beside one another, and also the noise
made by the wheels alongside them. 14The
spirit, then, lifted me up and took me off. I was passionately moved as
I went, being under the firm control of Yahweh’s hand. 15I came to the exiles in Tel Abib, where they were living. I stayed there among them for a week, in a state of disorientation.
Notes
1.a. Hardly “the grand canal” (e.g., Cooke 4; Fohrer 5). It appears in two Akk. texts as naru kabāru/i; the adj is kabru “great.”
1.b. For the Heb. construction, see Cooke 8.
1.c. The Heb.
pl. of generalization (Joüon 136j), which recurs in 8:3; 40:2, is to be rendered as sg
2.a. Lit. “it (was)”: for the use of היא
“it” in such explanatory notes, see Cooke 8. The reference to the fifth
month functions as a cue phrase harking back to the date in v 1 (Herrmann 1; Lang, Bib 64 [1983] 225) by means of an abbreviated reference to the last element.
3.a. Or possibly “… the priest Buzi.” The office may relate to the first or second name in OT usage. The literary convention of referring to a prophet’s occupation in a superscription (see Form/Structure/Setting) supports the former alternative, which the LXX followed here.
3.b. The inf
abs is used idiomatically at the outset of narratives: see Greenberg (41) for examples. V 3 functions along with v 2 as another beginning for the unit (see the Comment).
3.c. For MT
עליו “upon him,” the reading עלי “upon me,” implied by LXX
Syr. and found in thirteen mss, is generally preferred. The MT suffered assimilation to the third person of v 3a. The first-person echoing of the clause in 3:14bβ supports the emendation; so does the juxtaposition of divine hand and human vision in 8:1b–2, as here in vv 3b–4.
3.d. Since the LXX* regularly lacks שמ)ה( “there” in similar contexts, at 3:22; 8:1; 40:1, it has been regarded as an addition (see, e.g., Zimmerli 82). But it is arguable that it is relevant at 3:22; 40:1 (see the Notes). Did the LXX* omit here as superfluous (cf. Kraetzschmar 7; Lang, Ezechiel 20; Lind, JETS 27 [1984] 137)? Or was it added to the text in order to bind together more closely the two separate halves of the verse?
4.a. The second and third nouns are in apposition to the first. The copula inserted before the second in the LXX and also in the Vg and eight mss is an easier and so inferior reading: Zimmerli (8) draws attention to this tendency in the LXX. The LXX also presupposes the addition of בה “in it,” which further clarifies the relation of the cloud to the wind. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:2) interestingly suggested that at an earlier stage it was בא “came” and was a note added to show the parallelism of the wind and cloud.
4.b. The verb מתלקחת, which should basically mean “take hold of itself” and is used of lightning in Exod 9:24, seems to have the idiomatic sense of catching on fire and so burning. G. R. Driver (VT 1 [1951] 60 n. 1 and Bib 35 [1954] 145) cited Akk. and Syr. parallels for this semantic development in the case of the synonymous stem ˒ḥz.
4.c. The underlying Heb. text of the LXX evidently had a different order of clauses (see BHS), relating the surrounding radiance more clearly to the cloud (לו “to it”: ענן “cloud” is masc.); at the Gr. level, since νεφέλη “cloud” is fem, κυκλῷ αὐτοῦ “around it” must relate to the neuter πνεῦμα “wind.” Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:2), related the suffix to אשׁ “fire” by arguing that it is epicene (cf.
Greenberg 43). It is more likely that after the specification of the
three nouns (ABC) the latter two are defined further in a B´C´ order;
the Vorlage of the LXX
had a secondary ABB´CC´ order. The difference in order has sometimes
been taken as an indication that the clause about the radiance is a
gloss that compares its presence in v 27 (Herrmann 1; Hölscher, Dichter 46; et al.), but it is structurally fitting in both places (see Form/Structure/Setting).
4.d. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:2) suggested that מן “from” has a locative sense, as often in compound prepositions, here and in v 5, and in fact LXX
so interpreted. But the thought seems to be that from the perspective
of the viewer details gradually materialized from the background as the
phenomenon approached and could be seen more clearly. The following מתוך האשׁ
“from the midst of the fire” is often taken as an early gloss to make
explicit the antecedent of the preceding suffix, but it is universally
attested, and a near parallel occurs in v 13, where similar specifying emphasis is laid on the fire, as one reads on.
4.e. For Heb.
כעין “like the gleam of,” cf. W. McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach (London: SCM, 1970) 394.
4.f. For the rendering, see the Comment. The LXX adds “and brightness in it,” which may have originated in a comparative gloss נגה בית לה “radiance: inside it” which briefly noted the variant לה סביב בית “inside it around” that appears in the MT of v 27a for נגה לה סביב “and radiance to it around” here and in v 27b.
6.a. MT
לאחת להם “to each to them” is strangely used in the sense “to each one of them” (cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:2; Cooke 12, 24). LXX
Vg do not represent להם “to them,” and 10:21a, as well as v 6a here, supports the shorter text. The extra word may have originated as a variant of להנה “to them (fem)” in v 5.
7.a. After the fem suffixes relating to the living creatures in vv 5–6 (apart from the intrusive להם “to them” in v 6), there appears in vv 9–12 and 23–25 a series of masc suffixes. They are often taken as evidence of redaction (see Form/Structure/Setting). They seem to presuppose a humanoid form for the grammatically fem entities and indicate that חיות “living beings” does not here mean “animals.” A parallel phenomenon is the use of fem suffixes for the wheels in parts of vv 16–18, which may indicate their inanimate nature.
7.b. Lit. “(were) a straight leg” In v 23 appears an evidently misplaced gloss on the sg phrase here, a pl.
adj
ישׁרות “straight,” which correctly understands the sg as collective or distributive (“were in each case a straight leg” [Hitzig 6]). The LXX* has a pl adj for the MT’s sg phrase, which may imply that the gloss had displaced the text of the MT in its Vorlage, unless it is a loose rendering. In MT the marginal gloss was wrongly related to the next column.
7.c. Heb.
כף רגליהם here refers to the extremities of the legs, just as in v 7a רגלים, lit. “feet,” is used in the extended sense of legs (Vogt, Untersuchungen 82 n. 64).
7.d. The subj of the verb is not the legs, in which case a fem.
verb would be expected, but the living creatures, regarded as male
throughout the earlier part of the verse (Hitzig 6). Parunak
(“Structural Studies” 125) has observed that whenever כעין “like the gleam” is used in this pericope, it refers to the whole entity under consideration and not just a part of it. Cf. the supernatural figure in 40:3 who looked like copper. Then the application of the phrase to legs in Dan 10:6, in obvious dependence on this passage, does not represent the original intent.
8.a. Q
ידי “hands of” is generally followed; K
ידו
seems to mean “his hands (were [the hands of] a human being)” (Keil
23). The term seems to be used in the wider sense of “arm including
hand” (see del Olmo Lete, Vocación 24; cf.
HALAT 370a with reference to Jer 38:12).
8.b. The MT adds vv 8b–9:
“and their faces and their wings belonging to the four of them; their
wings were brushing against each other. They did not change direction
when they moved: each moved straight ahead.” Hölscher (Dichter 46) and Greenberg (44) have observed that vv 8b–9 and 11–12 are apparently doublets, each supplying some lack in the other.
Lind (JETS 27 [1984] 138) argues in favor of a number of longer readings in the MT
on the theoretically reasonable grounds that (1) the reading that best
explains the origin of the others is to be preferred and that (2)
claims of scribal amplification must be explained in terms of
objectively demonstrated causes. He is not able to find any such causes
here and so retains the present text. In fact, it can be plausibly
argued that vv 8b–9 are secondary, as Hölscher went on to claim. It is significant that counterparts in chap. 10 to v 8a (10:21b) and the beginning of v 10 (10:22aα) are juxtaposed. The material in vv 8b–9
seems to have originated in a string of marginal comments that have
been taken together and incorporated into the text. For this phenomenon
in other parts of the MT of Ezekiel, see my article “Annotation Clusters in Ezekiel,” ZAW
102 (1990) 408–13. The latest elements consist of “and their wings” and
“Their wings were brushing against each other,” which are absent from
the LXX*. Basically חברת אשׁה אל־אחותה “were brushing against each other” was a correction of the corrupt אישׁ “each [masc.!]” in v 11bα, with חברת functioning as a cue word (Höhne, “Thronwagenvision” 89; cf. Zimmerli 84). The preceding לארבעתם “to the four of them” in v 8b, already in the LXX, seems to be a variant of the form with a fem suffix, לארבעתן, which occurs twice in v 10 after a form with a masc. suffix. These two glosses were taken together and supplied with a subj וכנפיהם “and their wings” in v 8b, but after the division into separate sentences it was repeated at the end of v 9a (Zimmerli 84). The initial ופניהם “and their faces” in v 8b is probably a miswriting of וכנפיהם “and their wings,” under the influence of vv 6, 10 (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:4), which in the MT has been left alongside a corrected text but in the LXX stands uncorrected. V
9b consists of two clauses from v 12a, b in reverse order: the order in v 12 is supported by v 17. The reverse order was intended to suggest that the wings were the subj, by highlighting the fem suffix on בלכתן “when they moved”: after the fem references to wings in v 11,
the clauses were understood in terms of the movement of the wings
rather than of the living creatures. All this scribal activity relating
to vv 11–12
has been taken together and inserted into the text at a seemingly
appropriate point after the mention of faces and wings for each of the
four creatures in vv 6 and 8a.
11.a. The MT prefaces with ופניהם “and their faces,” which is absent from the LXX*: it is probably to be explained as in v 8 (cf. Lind, JETS
27 [1984] 137, who envisages vertical dittography). Greenberg (45)
notes that it makes no sense at this point, as the disjunctive accent
in the MT virtually admits.
11.b. As we noted above, v 9a has preserved a variant or correction, אשׁה אל־אחותה “each to its counterpart,” in place of the MT “each” (masc.!). The LXX and Syr. so imply and v 23 supports, while the combination in the MT with אישׁ as subj does not occur elsewhere. Undoubtedly the earlier occurrence of לאישׁ “to each” influenced the corruption. The first century b.c. Qumran MS
4QEz, which usually concurs with the MT, attests a text that lacks אישׁ (Lust, “Ezekiel mss in Qumran,” in Ezekiel and His Book, ed. J. Lust, 94–95), presumably after secondary omission of an awkward corrupted element.
11.c. For the rare form of suffix, see GKC 91l; Cooke 25.
13.a. For the MT
ודמות “and (as for) the likeness of (the living creatures),” the LXX has καὶ ἐν μέσῳ “and in the midst.” 10:2 supports the LXX as to the relative positions of the coals of fire and the living creatures. Both Zimmerli (84) and Greenberg (46) restore ובינות “and between,” following Hitzig (9) and others, but the form of the preposition is characteristic of chap. 10 (contrast בין later in this verse). Better is ומתוך “and from the midst of” (Herrmann 3; Fohrer 11; cf.
BHS), a form that appears in vv 4–5, where the LXX renders as here. It shares four consonants with the term in the MT. The latter may have originated as a comparative gloss that alluded to the combination חיות … דמות “the likeness … of living creatures” in v 5; it was subsequently regarded as a correction of the graphically look-alike preposition. Driver’s attempt to interpret דמות as “midst” (Bib 19 [1938] 61) is unconvincing; neither the neb nor the reb adopted it.
13.b. The MT
מראהם
“their appearance (was like)” suffers from the fact that the fire,
rather than the living creatures, is the evident concern of the
context. The LXX implies מראה “something that appeared (like).” Greenberg (46) prefers to read כמראה גחלי “like the appearance of coals” on the evidence of the Syr., noting that this is the standard form in the chapter, as later in this very verse, and that the construction in the LXX
is unparalleled. However, as often elsewhere, the Syr’s reading looks
suspiciously like an easier one that has been assimilated to the
context. The MT may have been influenced by v 16b.
13.c. Lit. “it,” with reference to אשׁ “fire” (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:5; Zimmerli 84).
13.d. The MT
ה)לפדים( “the (torches)” has frequently been regarded as a dittograph: the LXX does not represent the article.
13.e. V
13bβ and v 14 seem to be doublets (cf. Kraetzschmar 14–15). Since the LXX* omits v 14, scholarship has judged it to be the intruder (but see Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:5, who retained the MT with emendations; Halperin, JBL 101 [1982] 355 n. 22, who judges the LXX’s shorter text to be due to homoeoteleuton; and Lind, JETS 27 [1984] 138). However, the last two words of v 13, יוצא ברק “lightning was coming out,” and the first word of v 14, והחיות “and the living creatures,” appear to be separate glosses that have been absorbed into the flow of the text, rather like vv 8b–9. It is significant that the LXX omits החיות in v 15. Greenberg (46) observes that in v 14 its position before the inf abs violates Heb. usage. The term may have originated as a rubric gloss, which noted the subject matter of vv 5–14 (Freedy, VT 20 [1970] 142). Its presence in both vv 14 and 15 seems to represent double incorporation of the same gloss. In v 14
the context refers to flickering flames rather than to the living
creatures, which were immobile supports for the throne. As for יוצא “was coming out,” it seems to be an easier variant of רצוא in v 14: the Vg “ibant” presupposes it in v 14, while 4Q405
20 ii 21,22:9 ויצא … וישובו presupposes a similar Vorlage (cf. Newsom, Songs 315). Heb.
רצוא appears to be derived from a stem רצא as a byform of רוץ “run” (cf. Ewald 224; Dahood, Bib 53 [1972] 395; Θ
ἔτρεχον “ran”). Likewise ברק “lightning” looks like an explanation of בזק, a hapax legomenon that in the light of later Heb. usage appears to mean “lightning flash” (see A. Cohen, AJSL 40 [1924] 163; Jastrow, Dictionary 154a). As in v 13, the article may be a dittograph. Behind the omission of v 14 in the LXX* lies a recognition of the interrelatedness of vv 13bβ and 14, and a wrong decision to follow the easy path of the former and to excise the latter. It thus attests a post-MT stage of the text.
15.a. The MT adds החיות “the living creatures,” which is not represented in the LXX: see the preceding Note. Nor is it present in the parallel 10:9. The omission allows the style to accord with v 4 (cf.
2:9; 8:2, 7, 10; 10:1, 9; 44:4), where what Ezekiel sees is a new entity. Lind (JETS 27 [1984] 137) explained in terms of scribal supplying of an object for the verb.
15.b. The MT
לארבעת פניו “in respect of his four faces” does not fit the context. The final waw is generally attached to the following מראה in v 16, as LXX
Syr.
Vg and the parallel 10:9 suggest: “and the appearance.” Then in an original לארבעתם “in respect of the four of them,” attested by the LXX, the final mem was misread as ני, a not uncommon error, and sense was achieved by prefixing pe (Zimmerli 85, refining the explanation of Cornill 182).
16.a. See the previous Note. The MT adds ומעשׂיהם “and their construction,” unrepresented in the LXX* and in the parallel 10:9. It appears to be an anticipation of the term in v 16b (Lind, JETS 27 [1984] 137). As Cornill (182) observed, construction is not comparable with a jewel, but appearance is.
16.b. Heb.
תרשׁישׁ is a precious stone of uncertain meaning. According to the researches of H. Quiring (Sudhofs Archiv 38 [1954] 206–8), it means gold topaz.
16.c. Heb.
אחד is masc, while the noun is fem.: the same reading appears in the parallel 10:10. Driver (Bib 35 [1954] 145–46) assumed the ellipse of אופן: “the likeness of one (wheel).”
16.d. The MT prefixes ומראהם “and their appearance,” but the LXX* does not represent it, and it is inappropriate here. It is significant that in the parallel 10:10 the previous clause begins with this very word. Accordingly, it represents a comparative gloss relating to v 16aβ.
17.a. Lit. “they.”
17.b. The LXX* does not represent בלכתם “when they moved,” but since 10:11 reproduces it (with a different word order), the omission may be stylistic.
17.c. Heb.
על, usually “on,” is used in the sense of אל “to” (cf. vv 9, 12), as often in Ezekiel, doubtless under the influence of Aram. usage (see Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition 128–31).
18.a. The MT
וגביהן וגבה להם ויראה להם “and as for their rims, and they had height and they had fear” is problematic. The LXX
καὶ εἶδον αὐτά implies for the last clause ואראה להם “and I saw them,” presumably by assimilation to the verb in vv 4, 15, 27, although the form of the verb corresponds to that found in vv 1, 28. The reading is hardly original: one expects a direct object, as in v 27, or further description with והנה “and behold” (cf.
BHS), as in v 4; 2:9, for which there is no evidence. The MT should probably be retained in v 18a, if only for lack of a convincing alternative. The initial וגביהן is to be taken as a casus pendens (Taylor 57; Waldman, JBL 103 [1984] 617–18). Elsewhere יראה means “fear” rather than “fearfulness” (Cornill 183), even in Ps 90:11, to which Smend (13) appealed; but analogy with פחד “fear, object of fear” makes such an extension of meaning feasible. For ות/גבים in the sense of “rims,” cf.
גבים in 1 Kgs 7:33.
20.a. The MT adds שׁמה הרוח ללכת “thither the spirit to go,” originally intended as a correction of the earlier שׁם “there” with cue words הרוח ללכת (Herrmann 3). The correction accords with v 12; the corruption was a simple case of haplography. LXX
Syr. do not represent the three words.
20.b.
The traditional text, supported by all ancient witnesses, adds “would
ascend alongside them, because the spirit of the living creatures was
in the wheels.” The same material reappears in v 21b. What distinguishes it from the repetitive text of the rest of vv 19–21 is its lack of logical continuity with what precedes in v 20a. One expects a reference to the forward movement of the wheels at this point, as occurs in v 21a: mention of the vertical movement of the wheels is premature (cf. Höhne, “Thronwagenvision” 93). Seemingly a copyist’s eye jumped to ינשׂאו “would ascend” in v 21b, and he copied out the rest of v 21b, using a text, which, like that of the LXX, still lacked האופנים “the wheels” in v 21b. Subsequently, the missing words were reinserted together with the rest of v 21,
but without deletion of the now superfluous six words. The cause of the
parablepsis may have been the omission of a 34-letter line, if not of
two of 17 letters: for this phenomenon, cf. H. M. Orlinsky (JBL 61 [1942] 88–89), who refers to lines in Heb.
mss with about 11–13 or 14, 17, 23, 25, 30, and 35 letters to a line, and to my Greek Chronicles (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 2:133–36. For another case of a corrected and undeleted error, ***see 22:20 and Note. Höhne (“Thronwagenvision” 93) took v 20 as a gloss on v 21b that wanted to make clear that the spirit was the same as in v 12, but this seems an unnecessarily drastic explanation of the overlap. He rightly noted that 10:17 reflects not v 20 but v 21.
21.a. The LXX* lacks the MT’s האופנים “the wheels”: see the previous Note. It appears to be another rubric gloss, again occurring at the end of a topical section, like החיות “the living creatures” in vv 14, 15.
21.b. Heb.
חיה in vv (20) 21–22
is interpreted as a collective sg “living creatures.” Presumably it was
used to “emphasize the unity of the ensemble” (Greenberg 48).
22.a. The MT adds הנורא “which is awesome,” which is not represented in the LXX*. Probably it was originally intended to relate not to הקרח “crystal” (Vogt, Untersuchungen 8; Greenberg, 48, who understand—on what basis?—as “dazzling” [= tev; cf.
nab “glittering”]) but to רקיע “platform.” Kraetzschmar’s suggestion (18) to read נראה “was seen” and to relate it to the platform with reference to 10:1 is worth developing. In the description of the platform at 10:1, נראה “was seen” occurs in the MT but is not rendered in LXX*
Syr..
It was probably a gloss referring to the preceding line, where the
platform is described as “over the heads of the cherubim”: the gloss
remarked that it had been seen earlier by Ezekiel, i.e., in 1:22. Here הנורא is its counterpart, corrupted from a comparative gloss הנראה and going with what follows: “which was seen extended over their heads” (cf.
Dan 1:15 for the construction). The adaptation to נורא “awesome” was doubtless influenced by its appearance in theophanic descriptions elsewhere (Gen 28:17; Judg 13:6); its strange use to describe the noun of comparison is a clue to its secondary character.
23.a. The MT
ישׁרות
“straight” is awkward in this context: it is forced to explain in terms
of a pregnant construction (Kraetzschmar 18; Cooke 19; Greenberg 48).
The LXX has a doublet implying פרדות משׁיקות “stretched out, keeping in line”: the first term occurs in v 11 and the second in 3:13. The similarity of construction (“each other”) and context—the noise made by the wings—in 3:13 suggests that משׁיקות is the original reading, which 3:13 cites (cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:7). As noted above, the MT was intended as a marginal explanatory gloss on v 7a. It was related to the wrong column and taken as a correction of משׁיקות, with which it shares four consonants. For such intercolumnar confusion, see my Greek Chronicles 2:90–104, and VT 29 (1989) 68–69, with reference to 21:15, 18. For the meaning of the verb, see Note
3:13.a.
23.b. The MT, but not the LXX*, repeats ולאישׁ שׁתים מכסות להנה “and each had two covering for them.” Greenberg (48) takes the repetition as distributive (cf.
GKC 134q), comparing 10:9, and considers that the omission in the LXX represents the translator’s simplification. However, one would then have expected the repetition of the object, גויתיהם
“their bodies.” So dittography seems to have been responsible. Cornill
(185) and others have also judged the LXX correct in not representing
the first להנה
“for them.” If it relates to the living creatures, it clashes with the
two masc references within the clause. However, Greenberg (48) has
suggested that it is an ethical dative relating to the wings (cf.
BDB 115b, 116a). Then it has an intensifying force, and LXX doubtless dropped it as otiose. V
23b has been regarded as a gloss from v 11, since its content seems irrelevant here (e.g., Fohrer 13; Cooke 20). It is possible that it represents a marginal comment on v 11b that supplied a variant reading with an initial לאישׁ “to each”—as a correction of the awkward preceding אישׁ “each”?—and a final masc suffix. Then the common topic of wings encouraged its attachment to and incorporation in v 23a, in the next column.
24.a. The LXX* does not represent כקול־שׁדי “like the voice of Shaddai,” which is often taken as a gloss from 10:5 (Cornill 185; et al.). However, כקול אל־שׁדי בדברו “like the voice of El Shaddai when he spoke” looks like an elaboration of the shorter phrase here (Halperin, JBL 101 [1982] 355–56 and n. 23). Driver’s repointing שְׁדִי as “downpour” (JTS 41 [1940] 168) has been criticized by J. Barr (Comparative Philology and the Text of the OT [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968] 235).
24.b. The lack of kaph before the following קול “sound” indicates that קול does not function in a comparison. The continuation in vv 19 and 21, where בלכם
“when they moved” begins one clause and another identically structured
verb begins the next, suggests that the same occurs here with
asyndeton, contra the Masoretic accent. Tg.
Vg interpreted thus, and thence Vg-based Catholic versions, such as nab. The implication of v 25b is that the noise ceased (cf.
Tg. “their wings became silent”; also 4Q405 20 ii 21,22:13 [cf. Newsom, Songs 319]).
24.c. The LXX* lacks any representation of קול המלה כקול מחנה “a tumultuous noise like the noise of an army,” and scholars generally judge the MT secondary. However, the term המלה is too distinctive to be part of a gloss; it can hardly have been derived from the contextually dissimilar Jer 11:16, the only other place it occurs in the MT. It is cognate with Ug.. hmlt
“people, multitude” and is “noise of some magnitude which can be
compared with the hubbub of a military camp or to the thundering feet
of an army on the march” (W. McKane, Jeremiah 1–20 [Edinburgh: Clark, 1986] 250). Dan 10:6 already seems to presuppose the final comparison with its paraphrase כקול המון “like the noise of a multitude.” The omission in the LXX* may be explained in terms of overlooking a 27-letter line or two lines of 13 and 14 letters (cf.
Note 20.b. above); its representation of בלכתם “when they moved” after כנפיהם “their wings” suggests a partial marginal correction and subsequent insertion into the text at a suitable point. The MT adds vv 24b–25a, “when they stopped they would drop their wings. And there was a noise above the platform that was over their heads”; only C and a few mss omit. The repetition of v 24b in 25b and the close similarity of v 25a to v 26a raise suspicions. The LXX* at the beginning of v 25 implies והנה קול “and behold a sound” for ויהי קול “and there was a voice/sound” and omits vv 25b–26aα. Halperin (JBL 101 [1982] 355 n. 22), like Smend (15) before him, has found in the LXX* merely loss of vv 25b–26aα by homoeoteleuton of על־ראשׁם
“over their heads.” But the total evidence suggests a more complex
phenomenon, namely that three forms of the text may be disentangled:
(1) ויהי קול מעל לרקיע אשׁר על־ראשׁם “and there was a voice/sound above the platform that was over their heads,” the form of v 25a as it appears in the MT; (2) וממעל לרקיע אשׁר על־ראשׁם “and above the platform that was over their heads,” the form of v 26a as it appears in the MT; (3) והנה קול ממעל לרקיע אשׁר על־ראשׁם “and behold a sound above the platform that was over their heads,” the form underlying the LXX*. The MT has a doublet consisting of the first two forms, with v 24b serving as cue words to introduce the variant reading of v 25a. Preference is to be given to the form in v 26aα: the initial waw “and” at the beginning of a fresh section accords with vv 5 and 22, while an initial והנה “and behold” (cf. vv 4, 15) or ויהי “and there was” is unparalleled. One may best explain the intrusive קול “sound” as a rubric gloss at the end of a section, such as those that appear earlier in the MT in vv 14, 15, and 21:
they served to map out the development of the vision account. It is
less likely that it was originally intended to anticipate the “voice”
of v 28, although that has evidently become its role in the MT. A minor variant in the two MT readings is מעל ל (v 25a) and ממעל ל (v 26aα), meaning “above.” Neither occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel, but the latter is more common and is close to מלמעלה “above” in vv 11, 22, and 26b (cf.
למעלה, v 27). The former was probably influenced by מעל “from upon” in vv 19, 21. This piece of evidence supports the priority of v 26aα.
26.a. Lit. “on it above.” The LXX* (and Vg) omitted עליו as superfluous; subsequently it was wrongly supplied at the end of v 26a.
27.a. The MT adds כמראה־אשׁ בית־לה סביב “what looked like fire: it had a covering all round,” which the LXX* does not represent. It seems to be an intrusion on two counts. (1) It breaks the ABB´A´ chiasmus of v 27a–bβ,
in which the verbs of seeing and the accompanying similes function as
A/A´ and the upper and lower parts of the body as B/B´. Greenberg (50)
envisages the MT as a more complex chiastic structure that includes v 27bγ,
so that the A/A´’ elements are both longer: each consists of a simile
and a circumstantial clause, which in the first instance is “having
something with the appearance of fire surrounding it” and in the second
case is “and he was surrounded by a radiance.” His structural claim is
spoiled by his correct judgment that v 27bγ refers not to the immediately preceding context of the lower part of the figure but to the entire figure (cf. v 4). This admission is tantamount to denying that v 27bγ has any role within the smaller A´ element. (2) In 8:2, which appears to be a reprise of 1:27, there is general academic support, including Greenberg (166), for the originality of the LXX. As Greenberg himself states, there the LXX
“restricts ‘fire’ to the bottom half of the figure, where alone it
should be.” Fire is out of place in the description of the upper half.
The addition in the MT was probably intended as a comment on v 27bβ, with כמראה־אשׁ “what looked like fire” functioning as introductory cue words (Vogt, Untersuchungen 8). The intent of the gloss was to claim that the radiance enveloped the fire (לה “it”). This ancient interpretation accords with Ehrlich’s claim (Randglossen 5:8) that the masc. suffix in v 27bγ relates to the fire, as in v 4, rather than to the figure. Heb.
בית, lit. “house,” here has the sense of receptacle or covering (cf.
BDB 109b); the clipped vocalization is the result of the maqqeph (cf.
חַמַּת־למו in Ps 58:5(4); GKC 9u; but here GKC 130a n. 3 explains as constr and standing for [ל] מבית “within”).
2:1.a. The preposition את
“with” in Ezekiel, as in 1-2 Kings and Jeremiah, is often vocalized
with suffixes as if it were the object sign: Cooke (36) judged it a
colloquialism.
2.a. The MT adds כאשׁר דבר אלי “when/as he spoke to me,” which the LXX omits. It adds little to the narrative and indeed cuts across the future aspect of v 1b. Cornill (186) observed that in Ezekiel כאשׁר “as” is used in a temporal sense only in 16:50. The MT seems to represent an explanatory marginal comment on the inexplicit messenger formula in 3:11, which echoes the divine language of 3:10:
“Thus the Lord Yahweh has said—as he spoke to me.” The comment was
related to the wrong column and inserted here, as if it resumed מדבר “speaking” in 1:28bβ. In place of this clause, the LXX has two verbs added from 3:14 at the Gr. stage of the textual tradition.
2.b. The hithp form means strictly “speaking to himself.” It occurs in contradistinction to the piel ptcp in 1:28; 2:8 and recurs in 43:6 with a divine subj. The vocalization appears to be an artificial device motivated by reverence: cf. Greenberg 62.
3.a. In place of the MT
בני ישׂראל “sons of Israel,” the LXX has בית ישׂראל “house of Israel”: the two phrases are often confused (via an abbreviation ב׳ according to Cooke 36), and the opposite textual phenomenon occurs in 3:1. Cornill (187) argued in support of the LXX that the following pl. qualifiers encouraged the change, but Wevers (51) considers that they may make the MT preferable. Zimmerli (89) has urged that the phrase attested in LXX is the customary one in Ezekiel, occurring 83 times over against 11 according to Ezekiel 2
564, and so to be expected in this basic place. He also adduces the
impressive argument that the expression “house of rebellion” in vv 5, etc. was based on a primary “house of Israel,” and so its presence is expected here—rather than delayed till 3:1. The dominant role of בית ישׂראל “house of Israel” throughout the divine speech (3:1, 4, 7) must also be taken into account. Accordingly, the reading of the LXX is to be judged as preferable. The MT was probably influenced by בנים “sons” in v 4. The variant attested in the LXX was known in the Heb. tradition: it turns up as אל־בית ישׂראל “to the house of Israel” in 3:5 (see the Note there). The MT adds אל־גוים “to nations,” which LXX lacks. It does not fit the context of Ezekiel’s mission to Israel. The Syr. attests a sg “nation,” which the nrsv has adopted, but it is plainly an attempt to match the MT to the context. The addition surely originated in a marginal reading that supplied a variant for אל־עמים “to peoples” in 3:6 and strayed into the wrong column: see Note 3:6.b. G. del Olmo Lete’s suggestion that the mem is enclitic (Vocación 296) is unlikely: see Note 26:12.b*.
3.b. The LXX* lacks the MT’s addition פשׁעו בי “revolted against me.” In the MT
the consequent collocation of clauses is “who have rebelled against me;
both they and their forebears have revolted against me to this very
day.” The combination of the parallel verbs indeed occurs in 20:38, but in the MT
אשׁר מרדו בי “who have rebelled against me” is left hanging in the air and otiose after המרדים
“rebelling.” The presence of the extra words is less easily explained.
The phrase is clearly a doublet; it may have originated as a
comparative gloss on מרדו בי “they rebelled against me”: it occurs frequently in the prophetic literature (Isa 1:2; 43:27; Jer 2:8; 33:8; Hos 7:13; 8:1).
4.a. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:9; cf. Brownlee 26) sensitively noted that the adjectives have a comparative sense in this context.
4.b. The LXX* lacks v 4a, rightly in the judgment of many commentators. Zimmerli (90) stated that in Ezekiel בנים
“sons” is not used absolutely for the people in relation to Yahweh, but
Greenberg has justly countered that neither is it here, where it refers
to the present generation of Israelites, as distinct from their
forebears. Vv 3–4a exhibit a chiastic structure. It is not fair to call v 4a a gloss from 3:7 (Fohrer 15): the variation in phrasing is significant, קשׁי פנים וחזקי־לב “hard-faced and strong-hearted” here as opposed to חזקי־מצח וקשׁי־לב “strong-browed and hard-hearted” in 3:7. The changes in 3:7 seem to exhibit the inversion characteristic of recapitulation (cf. Talmon, Qumran 358–61), in which case 3:7 may be understood as presupposing the presence of 2:4a. Its absence from the LXX* may be due to the omission of a line of 36 letters or of lines of multiples thereof (see Note
1:20.b.) in the textual history of its Vorlage.
4.c. For the authenticity of אדני “Lord” in the messenger formula, see the appendix in Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 556–62, which reverses the policy of deletion he earlier advocated throughout his two volumes. For the LXX evidence, see the discussion of McGregor (Greek Text of Ezekiel 75–93).
5.a. The MT inserts והמה “and they,” which is lacking in LXX
Syr. The function of ו)ידעו( “and (they will know)” in v 5b in the MT is to introduce the apodosis to the conditional clause (cf.
GKC 112ff). However, v 7 (cf. the echo of vv 4b–5aα in 3:11) suggests that the conditional clause be taken with v 4b (Cornill 187; Zimmerli 90; et al.). Probably והמה “and they” arose is a comment on or variant of המה “they” in v 3b, clarifying that a fresh clause occurs in the MT.
5.b. Here and in v 7
LXX
Syr. (also Syr. in 3:11) render “be frightened” (see BHS), reflecting ידחלו by metathesis for יחדלו (Cornill 187).
5.c. LXX
Syr. imply אתה “you” for היה “there has been,” which Cornill (187) preferred. However, 33:33, which seems to echo v 5b, supports MT here.
6.a. So the LXX, implying ומפניהם אל־תחת for the MT
ומדבריהם אל־תירא “and of their words do not be afraid” (see BHS). The LXX is generally preferred: Zimmerli (90) notes that it avoids the awkward duplicating of אל־תירא “do not be afraid” and supplies a parallel structure in v 6a and v 6b. For the translator’s change in the order of words, see Marquis (Textus 13 [1986] 78–80). Did the MT originate in a marginal variant that compared or anticipated the first clause in v 6b, which variant was eventually taken as a correction of ומפניהם אל־תחת
“and by their faces do not be intimidated” in view of its identical
order of object with prepositional prefix and suffix + negative + verb?
Then it is a further case of a “cuckoo” invading the textual nest, for
which see in principle my articles in JTS 22 (1971) 143–50; 24 (1973) 69–78.
6.b. Heb.
כי, lit. “for,” gives the reason that they might be afraid (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:9; cf.
BDB 473b–74a). A. Aejmelaeus (JBL
105 [1986)]205–7), has argued that here and elsewhere a concessive
interpretation is wrong; she suggests that here the clause is either
causal or an object clause (“that”).
6.c. Heb.
אותך is lit. “with you, in your presence” (cf.
Note 2.a.). The double subj is of uncertain meaning. If—and the supposition is reasonable—סַלון is identified with סִלון “thorn” in 28:24, then סרב must have a similar sense. Hitzig (20) and Greenberg (66) have plausibly interpreted as “nettle,” comparing the stem צרב “burn”; so does M. Zohary (Plants of the Bible [London: CUP, 1982] 162). Traditionally it has been taken as “brier” (kjv). LXX
Syr.
Tg. interpreted both nouns in terms of Aram. or late Heb. verbs סרב “rebel” and סלה “despise.” Zimmerli (90) retroverted LXX
ἐπισυστήσονται ἐπὶ σὲ κύκλῳ “they will combine to attack you around” to an original סבבים “surround,” regarding אותך as the object sign. But the order of words hardly suits this reconstruction. It is more likely that the verb סלה underlies the LXX and that ἐπὶ σὲ κύκλῳ is a loose rendering of אותך (Cooke 36; cf.
nrsv). Moreover, it is significant that the first verb in the LXX, παροιστήσουσι “will provoke,” is used to render סרר “be stubborn” in Hos 4:16: evidently סרבים
was translated in terms of its first two consonants. As Greenberg (66)
observes, the following term “scorpions” suggests that metaphorical
terms are intended in the first clause.
6.d. Heb.
אל is used in the sense of על, as often in Ezekiel (Driver, JTS 35 [1934] 54).
6.e. Hitzig (20) suggested that a type of thorn was intended. Garfinkel (VT 37 [1987] 430–37) has argued for a secondary meaning in terms of a plant from the context and from late Heb. metathesized ערקבן “stinging creeper” and also for the causal clause referring to the prophet’s protection, as if by barbed wire.
7.a. In place of בית מרי “rebellious house,” which appears in vv 5, 6, etc., the MT has simply מרי “rebellion.” “An abbreviated ב׳ may well have fallen out by pseudohaplography after כי” (Allen in Brownlee [1986] 21). On the other hand, the longer, well attested (see BHS) reading may simply be a secondary harmonization; strict uniformity is not obligatory. Greenberg’s argument (66) that מרי serves to provide a link with v 8, where it is used predicatively of the prophet, deserves consideration.
8.a. In place of את אשׁר־אני מדבר “what I am speaking,” the LXX presupposes את מדבר “the one who is speaking,” clearly by assimilation to v 2b, where the same verb “hear” precedes. The LXX renders differently there (contra Greenberg, VTSup 29 [1978] 139–40) and so the difference seems to have been in its Vorlage.
8.b. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:10) distinguished נתן אל “give toward, hand over” here and in 3:3 from the standard נתן ל “give to.”
9.a. LXX
Syr.
Vg do not represent הנה “behold” in the MT
והנה־בו “and behold in it,” and the repetition of הנה is rare (cf.
37:2; Gen 31:51); moreover, a fem suffix בָהּ is expected after יד “hand.” Was a form בה misunderstood as בֹה (= בו; cf.
המונֹה, 31:18) and wrongly modernized as בו? It is possible that והנה originated as a marginal comment relating to the variant in 1:25 attested by LXX and was subsequently taken with the wrong column, displacing ו)בה(; on the other hand, the versions may have dropped the repetitious element.
10.a. As before, אליה is used in the sense of עליה “upon it” or rather here “over it”: the sg
כתוב “written” suggests that what follows is a title, which Ezekiel could read at a glance, rather than the contents (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:10–11).
10.b. LXX
Tg. render קנים “laments” as if sg. The unusual pl—generally קינות—favors the MT.
10.c. The MT
הי is used as an interjection “woe!” in Mishnaic Heb., and LXX
Vg so interpret. Here it seems to be used as a noun (Driver, Bib 35 [1954] 146, with reference to Σ
Tg.). An emendation to a noun נהי “lament” (Cornill 188, following Olshausen; et al.) is not necessary: cf. Greenberg 67.
1.a. The MT adds את־אשׁר תמצא אכול “what you find, eat,” which is not represented in the LXX* and is widely believed to be a gloss. After 2:8b–9, a single command, “eat this scroll,” is expected (cf.
3:2).
It may be suggested that the words originated as an exegetical and
comparative gloss, with a final cue word (“eat: what you find”), on את־אשׁר אני נתן אליך “what I present to you” in 2:8. The gloss alluded to Jer 15:16, נמצאו דבריך ואכלם “your words were found and I ate them.” It eased the transition from “hear what I speak to you” in v 8a to “eat what I present to you” in v 8b by hinting, correctly, that Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, was to find words and eat them. The comment suffered displacement from ואכל “and eat” in v 8 to אכול “eat” in 3:1 and was incorporated into the text here. If so, Greenberg’s linking of the omission in the LXX here with its omission of “what I” in 2:8a as redactional parallels (VTSup 29 [1978] 139) is mistaken.
2.a. The MT adds הזאת “this,” unrepresented in the LXX*. It is generally regarded as an addition assimilating to vv 1, 3: “this” is correct in the mouth of Yahweh, who holds the scroll, but not on Ezekiel’s lips (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:11).
3.a. The MT
ואכלה “and I ate” is more naturally pointed ואכלהּ “and I ate it,” as the ancient versions took it.
3.b. Is מתוק “sweet” used as a noun, “(in respect of) sweetness” (HALAT 618a), or is the sense “and it turned sweet” (Greenberg 68)? The order of words suggests the former. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:11) suggested pointing as inf constr )לִ(מְתּוֹק “(so as to) be sweet.”
4.a. Heb.
ודברת בדברי “and speak with my words” appears to have this sense in the context. Zimmerli (92–93) links with the formula בדבר יהוה “by the word of Yahweh” used in 1 Kgs 13, but the use of the pl. here does not favor the connection.
5.a. The MT
לא “not” is possible, but it must be considered together with לא in v 6a and אם־לא “if not” in v 6b (see below). The context suggests that it be repointed לֻא (= לוּ) “if” (Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:12). For confusion between אֹ and לוּ, see HALAT 487a.
5.b. Lit. “deep” and so inaccessible to the hearer, incomprehensible (cf. Block, JBL 103 [1984] 332 and n. 47): cf.
Isa 33:19, which adds משׁמוע “too (deep) to hear.”
5.c. Lit.
“heavy.” The parallelism suggests that the impact on the hearer is in
mind and that it signifies “difficult to grasp.” However, in Exod 4:10 it means “clumsy, not fluent.” The omission of the phrase in LXXB (BHS) is not relevant: it appears to be an inner-Gr. error (cf. Ziegler, LXX 98). The MT reflects the general textual tradition in adding אל־בית ישׂראל “to the house of Israel,” which is hardly in apposition to the “people” of v 5a but evidently intended as a contrast, as if “(not … ) but to … ” The construction is awkward, אתה שׁלוח “you are sent” doing double duty (Greenberg 68). The phrase surely originated as an old marginal gloss on אל־בני ישׂראל “to the sons of Israel” in 2:3, recording a seemingly correct variant such as the Vorlage of LXX contained. It was wrongly taken with the very similar context of 3:6 in the next column and incorporated into the text.
6.a. See Note 5.a. above. Θ ὤφελον “would that” presupposes לֻא “if.”
6.b. For the variant that strayed into 2:3, see Note 2:3.a. Cf.
גוים רבים “many nations” in 26:3; 31:6. The two phrases occur as redactional variants in the parallel texts Isa 2:3 and Mic 4:2.
6.c. The omission in the Syr. of the two adjectival phrases that occurred in v 5a is typical of the version, and so is probably not relevant for the Heb. text. The repetition is often taken as accidental, but the first phrase and the final clause seem to be an expanded form of Isa 33:19, עמקי שׂפה משׁמוע “too deep of lip to hear.”
6.d. The MT
אם־לא evidently means “surely,” with a following conditional clause that lacks a conditional particle: “surely (if) … ” (Hitzig 23; et al., including Greenberg 69; cf.
GKC
149b [but 159b, h render this sense unlikely]). This is a most
unnatural and confusing construction. Nor is a sense “but” likely, in
accord with Aram. אלא (cf.
Syr.
Tg.), although it is theoretically possible (cf.
Gen 24:38; Ps 131:2): the antithesis does not come till v 7 (Zimmerli 93). Many read אם “if,” but the intrusion of לא is then difficult to explain; moreover, לו rather than אם is typically used in an unreal condition (GKC 159l). It is probable that אם originated as an explanation of לא in the sense לֻא “if” (cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:12; cf.
LXX
Vg “and if”).
8.a. The pf is performative here and in v 9: see Note 22:13.a.*; Waltke and O’Connor, Syntax 30.5.1d and n. 17; Joüon 112f, g.
9.a. Heb.
שׁמיר means “diamond, adamant” rather than “emery, carborundum,” as used to be thought on the basis of a misread Akk. term (see HALAT 1445b–46a). The LXX attests ותמיד “and continually” in place of ושמיר. Obviously this is a “cuckoo” type of replacement (cf.
Note 2:6.a.). Was תמיד originally an exegetical comment on 2:3b (cf.
Isa 65:3)?
10.a. The tr. conceals the awkward order of clauses, which Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:12) credited to Ezekiel’s inelegant diction.
12.a. Most since Cornill (190–91) have adopted a conjectural emendation made by S. D. Luzzato and independently by Hitzig (24), ברום “when … arose” for MT
ברוך “blessed,” as the context seems to demand. The doxology in the MT
is “certainly a somewhat peculiar utterance” (Fairbairn 41).
Kraetzschmar (32) called the emendation one of the most brilliant
conjectures ever made in OT
study. As Greenberg (70) observes, the sequel shows that the noise was
caused by the movement of components of the mobile throne, rather than
being an articulate sound. There is a similar confusion of קול as “noise/voice” in the MT at 1:25.
The pervasiveness of the corruption throughout the textual tradition
indicates that it took place at an early stage: in fact it was in the
old Heb. script that mem and kaph were easily confused. In chap. 10
רום “arise” is the equivalent of נשׂא “be lifted up” in chap. 1: this text appears to be the source for the change. Ehrlich (Randglossen 5:12) proposed that an accidental dittograph, ברומך, was the midpoint between the MT and the original. However, Kraetzschmar’s suggestion (32) that comparison with Isa 6:3 influenced the corruption is more likely. Doubtless the similarity of Ps 72:19 to Isa 6:3
also contributed. One of the Qumran “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,”
which were heavily influenced by Ezekiel, may preserve an awareness of
textual variation in its reading וברכו בהרומם “and (the cherubim) bless as they rise” (4Q405 20 ii 21,22:7; 11QShirSabb 3,4:9). The words are probably to be taken together (with Halperin, Faces 52, and against Newsom, Songs 306). Halperin (Faces
44) has described the error as “truly a Freudian slip of the pen,” in
view of the deep influence it had on centuries of Jewish mysticism.
13.a. In v 13b
וקול “and noise” appears to be a slight error for קול “noise” (BHK; cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen 5:12), by mechanical assimilation to וקול twice before. The final nominal phrase repeats the one in v 12 and functions as subj Greenberg (71) takes the waw as explicative. To categorize v 13 as a gloss with a final cue phrase (Herrmann 7) ignores the structural significance of the verse (see Form/Structure/Setting).
13.b. This verb נשׁק is distinct from נשׁק “kiss.” It is cognate with Arab. nasaqa “string (pearls), join one to another” and Eth. nesūq “arranged in order.” In the OT it is used synonymously with ערך “order” (L. Kopf, VT 9 [1959] 265–67; HALAT 690b). Here it has the sense of “keeping in line each in relation to the other” (Driver, Bib 35 [1954] 147).
14.a. The change of order and construction in relation to v 12aα is occasioned by the factor of repetition: cf.
2 Sam 3:22–23; 1 Kgs 20:17, 19 (Joüon 118g).
14.b. Heb.
חמה here means “emotional heat, passion” (HALAT 313a).
14.c. The MT
מר “bitter,” which is not represented in LXX* (cf. Ziegler, LXX 100) Syr., does not fit the context. It is clearly related somehow to מתוק “sweet(ness)” in v 3. Was it originally a marginal gloss on 2:8bβ (cf.
3:3aγ)
that expounded the metaphor and explained that what was presented to
eat was by nature bitter, but surprisingly turned out to be sweet? A
clever interplay with מרי “rebellious” in 2:8 may also have been intended. In due course the comment was related to the wrong column by someone who understood חמה (“vehemence” = LXX
ὁρμή) as “anger.” Within the Gr. textual tradition, μετέωρος “through the air” seems to have nothing to do with מר: it was simply an attempt to make sense of the Gr. term in v 15 (see next Note) by applying it first to the spirit’s transportation of the prophet.
15.a. The MT
המה וישׁבים שׁם (K) הישׁבים אל־נהר־כבר ואשׁר “who lived by the Kebar Canal and who lived there” is generally held to be conflated (e.g., Zimmerli 95; Greenberg 71). The rest of the textual tradition supports the MT, except that the Syr., along with two Heb.
mss, omits the second clause. Q
ואשׁב “and I sat,” substituted for ואשׁר “and who,” in an attempt to make sense of the conflation, is followed by the Tg.; K and Q are both represented by the Vg “and I sat where (they were sitting),” which the kjv followed. The second clause seems to be the earlier one (Cornill 191; et al.), minus the waw “and,” which was added when the first clause entered the text. Probably אל־נהר־כבר “by the Kebar Canal” was meant as a gloss explaining שׁם “there” in the light of 1:1, and הישׁבים originated as a cue phrase ישׁבים (= המה) ה׳ “they lived” (Lang, Bib 64 [1983] 227–28). The LXX has μετέωρος καὶ περιῆλθον “high and I went around” for תל אביב “Tel Abib.” The first noun was obviously related to the stem תלל “be high.” For the second noun ואסב was apparently read: is this reading linked with Q
ואשׁב, displacing אביב in the Vorlage of the LXX?
15.b. Heb.
משׁמים appears to be an elative hiph, “distressed”: cf. E. A. Speiser (JCS
6 [1952] 81–92), one of whose categories of elative hiph is forms
denoting stillness, sometimes resulting from fear. Since the hiph of שׁמם is transitive apart from Job 21:5 and here, KB 989a took as causative, “causing to be distressed.” Ezra 9:3–4 has a polel ptcp, משׁומם, to which Cornill (192) emended.
Form/Structure/Setting
The literary unit runs from 1:1 to 3:15.
The formula of rising up and going to a different place is one
convention for marking the end of a narrative segment, as in principle
R. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981] 65) has observed; 3:12, 14–15
clearly reflects this convention. The unit as a whole consists of a
report of a vision, which contains an account of a theophany and
communication of a divine commission of a prophetic vocation. B. O.
Long (JBL
95 [1976] 359–63) has characterized it as belonging to the type of
vision report that is a dramatic word-vision. In this type the report
depicts a heavenly scene or dramatic action, a supramundane situation
that presages a future event in the mundane realm. The ominous import
is conveyed by the divine word. An important use of this kind of vision
report is to legitimate prophetic claims, such as Isaiah’s message of
judgment in Isa 6 and Zechariah’s message of salvation in Zech 1:8–17. The divine word has the function of commissioning the prophet. Ezek 1:1–3:15
falls into this category. Long has observed that the dramatic
word-visions in Ezekiel tend to lay heavy stress upon the divine word
and treat vision as mere preparation for word. Moreover, there is often
a twofold pattern of the appearance of Yahweh’s glory and divine
address (40:1–4; 43:1–12; 44:4–31; cf.
8:1–6).
He has plausibly suggested that a priestly convention for schematizing
divine vision and instruction underlies this bipartite type of account (cf.
Num 20:6–8; cf. M. Weinfeld, THAT 4:35–36). It might be added that Yahweh’s appearing in glory is often associated with judgment in P (Exod 16:10; Num 14:10; 16:19–21; 17:7–10[16:42–45]).
The same pattern of vision and instruction appears in the visionary
call narrative here, the report of a theophany and, in a separate
phase, a commissioning message (cf.
Dan 8:15–18).
Prophetic
call narratives by Ezekiel’s time represented an established tradition,
behind which lay older accounts of the call of national leaders such as
Moses in Exod 3–4 and Gideon in Judg 6.
Zimmerli (97–100) has distinguished between two types of prophetic call
account, one of which majors in a throne vision, seen in Isa 6, and the other in the divine word, such as Jer 1:4–10. He has found a combination of both, in chaps. 1 and 2–3, respectively. However, Long (ZAW
84 [1972] 494–500) has disputed Zimmerli’s bifurcation. He envisions a
single type, discovering a common source for the features of divine
vision and word in older, ancient Near Eastern and Israelite theophany
vision or dream reports, in which theophany was a legitimating device (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:5–15).
He prefers to regard this tradition as exhibiting not a form but a
schema that was used in texts of various genres. There does appear to
be a recurring set of traditional elements that make up the call
reports. These have been variously identified, often with more
difference in nomenclature than in substance (cf. the table in G. del Olmo Lete, Vocación 372–73). For example, N. Habel (ZAW 77 [1965] 313) found in Ezekiel’s case six elements: divine confrontation (1:1–28), introductory word (1:29–2:2), commission (2:3–5), implied objection (2:6, 8), reassurance (2:6–7), and sign (2:8–3:11). The presence of an objection, however, is doubtful.
Identification
of generic elements is not necessarily the same as exposing the
literary structure within which they are used as building blocks. The
theophany account, with its emphasis on seeing, is exceedingly
elaborate: it extends from 1:1 to 1:28bα. G. del Olmo Lete (Vocación 299–300, 307–8) has observed that the long form ואראה “and I saw” in vv 1 and 28bα—as distinct from the shorter equivalent וארא in vv 4, 15, and 27—provides a frame for the theophany account. V 1 has an introductory role; consideration of vv 2–3a
may be deferred to a later point. Thereafter it is possible to divide
up the narrative on the basis of subject matter, but commentators have
shown no consistency in using this method. Rhetorical criticism is a
safer, more objective guide in delineating the limits of the parts that
make up this literary whole. H. V. D. Parunak has observed that a
chiastic framework is provided in vv 4 and 26–28 (“Structural Studies” 123–24; JBL 99 [1980] 63):
A. Storm phenomena |
|
ענן,רוח סערה | C´. כעין חשׁמל |
“storm wind, cloud” | “like gleaming amber,” v 27a |
B. ונגה לו סביב | B´. ונגה לו סביב |
“and radiance surrounded it” | “and radiance surrounded him,” v 27b |
| A´. storm phenomena |
C. כעין החשׁמל | הגשׁם,ענן |
“like gleaming amber” | “cloud, rain,” v 28a |
Within this outer framework, he suggested that the body of the text consisted of three sections, vv 5–14, 15–21, and 22–25, each of which contains the same key word as occurs in the framework units, כעין “like the gleam of” (vv 7, 16, 22).
It is possible to refine this structural analysis. First, the description of the vision proper begins with v 3b (see the Comment) and ends at v 28a, after which v 28bα harks back to v 1 and rounds off the narrative, as noted above. V
28bβ aligns with chap. 2.
Second, and more important, Smend (10), followed by Bertholet ([1897]
6) and Kraetzschmar (7), on grounds of subject matter isolated vv 13–14
as a section in its own right. Four stylistic factors support this
refinement and even suggest that the section closely aligns with vv 3b–4 and 26–28a. (1) אשׁ “fire” occurs in vv 4, 13 (three times), and 27, independently of the chiastic structure of vv 4 and 26–28a. (2) The weather phenomena of vv 4 and 28a are matched by בזק “lightning flash” in v 14. (3) There is a partial echo of the B/B´ element of vv 4 and 27b in ונגה לאשׁ “and the fire had radiance” in v 13 (cf. the resumptive הנגה סביב “the surrounding radiance” in v 28a). (4) כמראה “like the appearance of” occurs only in vv 13–14 (two times), apart from its fourfold occurrence in vv 26–28a. It is true that Parunak’s sectional key word כעין “like the gleam of” does not occur in vv 13–14, but neither does כמראה “like the appearance of” occur in v 4. There seems to be a certain selectivity, rather than uniform repetition of every feature.
When
content is aligned with this stylistic evidence, there emerges an
impression of an alternating sequence that finally coalesces. A storm
theophany in v 4 gives way to a throne theophany in vv 5–12; it reappears in vv 13–14 and then yields to development of the throne theophany in vv 15–21 and 22–24a, 25b before the storm and throne theophanies are finally combined in the climactic vv 26–28a:
storm | 3b–4 |
| 13–14 |
|
| 26–28a |
throne |
| 5–12 |
| 15–21 | 22–25 |
With respect to the throne theophany sections of vv 5–12, 15–21, and 22–25,
Hals (14) observed a consistent feature, a concluding motif of
mobility. This insight enables the reader to see that each of these
sections falls into at least two parts, the latter of which is
concerned with mobility. In vv 5–12 the description of the living creatures, whose role is later shown to be supporters of the throne, culminates at v 12 in their movement under the control of the רוח “spirit.” The preceding vv 5–11 consist of two roughly parallel parts. Vv 5–7 mention their human form (v 5a), their four faces (v 6a) and four wings (v 6b), and also their legs (v 7a), while vv 8–11 (actually vv 8a, 10–11: see the Notes) develop these aspects by referring to human arms and hands (v 8a) and by describing the faces (v 10) and wings (v 11). Vv 15–21, which describe the wheels of the throne, fall into two parts, vv 15–18 and 19–21: מעל הארץ “from the ground” in vv 19 and 21 function as an inclusion, echoing the initial בארץ “on the ground” in v 15. Vv 19–21 develop v 12, explaining the movement of the wheels in relation to the creatures, under the joint control of the רוח “spirit.” Vv 22–24a, 25b are initially concerned with the רקיע “firmament-platform” above the living creatures in v 22. Thereafter the motif of mobility comes to the fore again. To this end v 23 has a transitional function; vv 24a and 25b describe the noise of the creatures’ moving wings.
The second part of the visionary call narrative consists of 1:28bβ–3:11. It majors in Yahweh’s verbal revelation to Ezekiel: just as the verb ראה “see” echoes through the first part, so the formula that introduces divine speech, ויאמר אלי “and he said to me,” reverberates through this one (2:1, 3; 3:1, 3, 4, 10). It is reinforced by the related verb דבר “speak” in the early stages of the account (1:28bβ; 2:1, 2). There has been a tendency to define the structure of this second part in terms of the occurrence of the vocative בן־אדם “human one,” which mostly follows the introductory formula ויאמר אלי “and he said to me” and also stands after ואתה “and you” within divine speech (2:6, 8).
Thus Lamparter (38), Zimmerli (106–7), and Greenberg (72–73) envision
six sections that also express form-critical features: an introduction
in 1:28bβ (or 2:1)–2:2, commission in vv 3–5, reassurance in vv 6–7, ordination in v 8–3:3, recapitulation of the commission in 3:4–9, and a summary in vv 10–11. The cases of ויאמר אלי בן־אדם “and he said to me, ‘Human one’” in 3:1, 3 are taken as introducing stages within a larger section. We noted previously Habel’s analysis of the passage (ZAW 77 [1965] 313) solely in terms of form, concluding with a section 2:8–3:11. The heterogeneity of the material in this section makes it unlikely.
Scholars commonly postulate a section 2:8–3:3, which contains three instances of בן־אדם
“human one.” The abundance of the address casts doubt on the usefulness
of the term as a criterion for structural division. Moreover, the
identification of form-critical elements is not necessarily a guide to
the literary structuring of a particular unit. Does this long text
contain rhetorical clues to its structure? The series of imperatives
addressed to Ezekiel, עמד “stand” in 2:1, שׁמע “hear” in 2:8, and לך־בא “come, go” in 3:4,
seems to initiate major stages of development. This criterion by itself
suffers from the same defect as the vocative address, since imperatives
also occur in 3:1, 3, 10, and 11, and prohibitions feature in 2:6. But an analysis in terms of three sections consisting of 1:28bβ–2:7, 2:8–3:3, and 3:4–11 is supported by evidence of inclusion observed by del Olmo Lete (Vocación 316–17). In 2:8 and 3:3, אשׁר אני נתן אליך “what/which I am presenting to you” forms a framework. Likewise, in 3:4 and 11a the divine assignment to Ezekiel is stated twice, in similar terms.
The stylistic structure of 1:28bβ–2:7 is more difficult to discern. Del Olmo Lete has found an inclusion in the repetition of 2:4b–5a in v 7. Certainly 1:28bβ–2:2a functions as an introduction, whose beginning, ואשׁמע קול מדבר “and I heard the voice of someone speaking,” is repeated at the start of the main part, in 2:2b. The doubled motif of sending in vv 3a and 4a is matched by the twin reassurance not to fear in v 6. The content of vv 4b–5a is repeated in v 7. It seems then that after the introduction there are two coordinated subsections, vv 2b–5 and 6–7, each of which falls into two parts.
In
terms of content, the three sections are concerned with the elements of
commission, ordination, and confirmation, as del Olmo Lete (Vocación 316–17) has observed. The first section includes the element of reassurance in 2:6–7.
Del Olmo Lete has noted that the final item in call narratives often
consists of resumption of one or more earlier elements, and that
confirmation closes the extended call narrative in Jer 1, at vv 17–19.
The unit is concluded by the narrative of 3:12–15,
with a change of scene whereby Ezekiel is translated from the site of
the vision to the exilic settlement. Parunak has seen a complete chiasm
covering 1:1–3:15, in the course of which 3:12 corresponds to 2:1–2, 3:13 to 1:4–28, and 3:14–15 to 1:1–3 (“Structural Studies” 122–37; JBL 99 [1980] 62–66; cf. Fuhs 19). His comparison of 3:12 and 2:1–2 includes repetition of divinely related speech, but this parallel precariously depends on the Masoretic doxology in 3:12. Del Olmo Lete (Vocación 317) has more reasonably found a further case of inclusion. 3:12–14a aligns with 1:4–28, deliberately echoing the earlier description of theophany, while 3:14b–15 resumes 1:1–3 (more strictly 1:1, 3b) in its references to the exiles (הגולה “the exiles” and בתוכם “among them” in v 15) and the pressure of Yahweh’s hand (v 14b). One may also partially reinstate Parunak’s scheme and see in the spirit’s translation of the prophet in vv 12a and 14a a counterpart to the spirit’s enabling in 2:2. Then 1:4–2:2 is the initial span of material that is paralleled in 3:12–14a.
While 1:1–3:15
gives the impression of being a literary unit in the light of its
form-critical and stylistic coherence, we must ask whether and to what
extent redactional activity underlies it. In this regard, one must
consider that the account appears to envision only Ezekiel’s ministry
of judgment and never to transcend it with any hope of a brighter
future (cf. Hals 10). However, the intrusive 1:2–3a
can hardly be excluded from the category of redaction (see below). As
for the vision account, while it is impressionistic, it shows clear
evidence of reflection. Accordingly, doubt is cast on Block’s
explanation of the traditional state of the text as the result of an
emotional blurting out of the prophet’s immediate observations (CBQ 50 [1988] 427–39). As Greenberg (52) has observed,
the
depiction of the various motions and situations of the apparition …
seems to be based on a combination of observations more complex and
varied than the mere approach of the apparition involved in this vision.
Yet
this reflective character could well have been inherent in the written
account from the beginning. Zimmerli, after reviewing and criticizing
earlier redaction-critical efforts (95–97), went on to set out his own
presentation (100–106). Most significantly, he saw an
indication of redaction in the variation in gender of suffixes relating
to the living creatures and associated grammatical phenomena, whereby
masculine forms appear alongside expected feminine ones. It permitted
him to isolate a minimal amount of original material, which uses
feminine suffixes. However, Keel (Jahwe-Visionen 215 n. 203) has observed that Zimmerli retained v 12 (apart from v 12bα) despite its masculine references.
A related issue is the use of feminine suffixes for the (masculine) wheels in vv 16–18.
Höhne (“Thronwagenvision” 80–84), following Eichrodt (55–56),
attributed both sets of aberrant suffixes to copyists who altered to
masculine suffixes in the case of the creatures under the influence of
the (male) cherubim in chap. 10 and erroneously altered to feminine suffixes in the case of the wheels in mechanical assimilation to the feminine suffixes in 1:5–12.
The relatively random inconsistency of these grammatical deviations is
probably to be laid at the door of text criticism, rather than
redaction criticism, although they may be retained as a textual
curiosity that has no bearing on exegesis.
Zimmerli (104–5, 127), developing the observations of Sprank (Studien 52–54), also regarded the whole section concerning the wheels, vv 15–21, as secondary, though already presupposed by chap. 10. His main argument depends on his redactional view of the material with wrong suffixes in vv 5–12.
He also found marked deviation in content from the rest of the vision:
a breaking of the ascending order of description by reverting to a low
element, a switch from an airborne perspective to the ground, and a
concern with technical detail. Keel (Jahwe-Visionen 181 n.
125) prefers to think rather of a concern for minute details, but
otherwise he tends to support Zimmerli. He argues that the wheeled
divine chariot in vv 15–21 represents a totally different concept from that of the throne-bearing creatures that dominates the rest of the vision (Jahwe-Visionen 180–88). If the structural analysis offered above is correct, one could also adduce a structural argument: that if vv 15–21 were omitted, the resultant pattern would be simply A/B/A/B/AB. Moreover, Houk (ZAW 93 [1981] 76–85) has applied to the unit two statistical methods of determining authorship and deduced that vv 15–21
are secondary. In fact, he cuts out considerably more than Zimmerli’s
reconstructed text and envisions a brief primary unit of vv 4–5a, 22, 26–28.
These
arguments are much more impressive in terms of their cumulative impact
than when considered one by one. In my limited experience, statistical
analysis has sometimes supported and sometimes been at tantalizing
variance with other perspectives. Keel (Jahwe-Visionen 143) significantly also regarded the whole of vv 13–14 as secondary. He worked with a unitary conception of Ezek 1
as closely linked with ancient Near Eastern iconography. But what if
the vision narrative deliberately employs two basically different
cultural conceptions, as the structure suggests, and vv 15–21 represent the influence of the storm theophany of vv 13–14? Indeed, Mettinger (Dethronement 105) has urged the originality of vv 15–21 because of the link between cloud and chariot in literary descriptions of the storm theophany in the OT. He cited Pss 104:3; 77:19 (18; גלגל “wheeled vehicle”); Zech 6:1–8; 2 Kgs 2:11. Although vv 15–21 embody reflection, like other parts of the vision, their redactional nature is not assured.
Zimmerli (126) linked v 7 with the addition of vv 15–21 as implying a single metal post as part of a metal chariot, instead of a foot or feet. However, Keel (Jahwe-Visionen 178 n.
115, 215) has observed on iconographical grounds that a reference to
two literal feet is quite possible and indeed more likely. Overall,
while one must leave open the possibility of redaction in this complex
vision account, it does possess a degree of coherence that is
compatible with a writing down (or dictating) of afterthoughts
regarding an overwhelming experience.
As for the rest of the call narrative, 1:28bβ–3:15,
it is significant that Zimmerli (106–7) has judged it to be of a
primary nature. He has defended the text, repetitious as it often is,
against earlier charges of redaction. He has found only 3:13
secondary, largely because of its masculine suffix relating to the
living creatures. However, as we saw earlier, the verse has a valuable
structural role to play in the overall narrative. To attribute this
particular stylistic phenomenon to redactional activity is to create a
jigsaw with one missing piece.
The call narrative as a whole clearly functions as a literary introduction to the judgment oracles of Ezekiel. The parallel of Isa 6, which evidently served as a preface to a written collection of Isaiah’s oracles delivered during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis (7:1–8:18 or 9:6[7]; cf. R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 70–71), suggests that it was combined
with a shorter or longer collection of Ezekiel’s oracles of judgment,
possibly culminating in chap. 7. The call narrative provided supernatural warrant for them (cf.
Long, “Prophetic Authority” 12–13, although his attributions of both
the Isaiah and the Ezekiel complexes to later tradents is less likely).
The redactional note(s) in 1:2–3a
seem(s) to consciously integrate this material into a subsequent larger
whole. The style of opening an oracle or collection of oracles with a
combination of a message-reception formula and general information
about the prophet accords with Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1.
However, it would be rash to conclude with Zimmerli (110) that the
redactional addition was made in the early postexilic period. It is
noteworthy that there is a difference in the style of dating by years
in Ezekiel on the one hand and in Haggai and Zechariah on the other.
The style of Ezek 1:1, 2
accords with that of the rest of the book in supplying (1) first a
cardinal number and then the year in cases of numerals from eleven
upwards, and (2) first the year and then an ordinal number in cases of
numerals from one to ten, while the examples in Haggai and Zechariah
follow an evidently postexilic style of placing the year before a
cardinal number (cf. C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas, BZAW 187 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990] 102–4 and n. 36). Moreover, the similarity of Ezek 1:2 to Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1
seems to be fortuitous. In this case, the opening of the unit had
evidently been established already and was regarded as sacrosanct. The
only way to amplify the text was to clarify the date, by means of an
addition that referred to the ground-breaking nature of the eventual
oracle with the infinitive absolute (see the Notes),
and to give some basic personal and topographical details about
Ezekiel. The secondary impression of the text upon the reader,
including its switch to the third person, suggests that Ezekiel himself
was not responsible for vv 2–3a
and that the writer belonged to the second generation of exiles for
whom such details about the prophet were considered necessary, perhaps
under the influence of a literary tradition of superscriptions in which
parentage, occupation, and setting were already important (cf. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions” 61, 69).
Here is an outline of the literary unit:
1:1–28bα | Ezekiel’s vision of God |
1:1 | Introduction |
1:2–3a | Chronological clarification and general introduction |
1:3b–4 | A theophany of storm, fire, and radiant aura |
1:5–12 | The winged beings who fly |
1:13–14 | The fire and aura of the storm theophany |
1:15–21 | The wheels that could move on the ground |
1:22–25 | The firmament-platform and the noise made by the flying wings |
1:26–28a | The throne and the enthroned deity; the fire and the aura |
1:28bα | Conclusion |
1:28bβ–3:11 | Ezekiel’s message from God |
1:28bβ–2:7 | Commissioning to be a prophet |
2:8–3:3 | Ordination |
3:4–11 | Confirmation |
3:12–15 | Ezekiel’s translation |
Comment
The prophetic call narrative of 1:1–3:15 is a carefully constructed composition that falls into two parts, an account of Ezekiel’s visual encounter with Yahweh (1:1–28bα) and a description of his auditory receipt of a prophetic commission (1:28bβ–3:11).
1 The visual encounter is to be described in vv 3b–28a. Here it is supplied with a brief introduction in which the announcement of the vision in v 4 (וארא “and I saw”) is expanded into a longer preliminary statement. It fittingly includes the term ואראה “and I saw,” which will be resumed in the even briefer closing description of Ezekiel’s reaction to the vision in v 28bα. There is a reference to the time of the vision and, in general terms, Ezekiel’s circumstances when he experienced it.
The
reference to “the thirtieth year” is problematic. H. H. Rowley’s honest
admission “I know of no wholly satisfactory solution” (BJRL
36 [1953] 182), which echoes that of Keil (19), originally written in
1868, still holds true. The dating does not conform to the use of
Jehoiachin’s deportation in 597 b.c. as an initial point, which is found in the rest of the book, including v 2. This fact seems to suggest that it antedates that chronological reference system, which begins in 8:1 and runs at intervals throughout the rest of the book (20:1; 24:1, etc.; cf. the more explicit 33:21; 40:1). Its uniqueness is consistent with the supposition that 1:1–3:15 originally prefaced an independent, short collection of oracles of judgment that appears in chaps. 4–7. York (VT
27 [1977] 83–91) has given an overview and critique of the various
solutions that have been offered. So has Kutsch, more briefly, in Daten
45–46, while Low (“Interpretive Problems” 78–124) has devoted a chapter
to it. Only the more significant proposals need be reviewed here. It is
possible to relate “the thirtieth year” to Jehoiachin’s deportation by
text-critical means. Thus W. F. Albright (JBL 51 [1932] 96–97) developed a suggestion made earlier by A. Merx, that it refers to the publication of the book in 568 b.c. In order to reach this explanation, he had to make the assumptions that v 3a originally followed v 1aα and that in v 2
היא השׁנה “that is, the year” was a corruption of בשׁנה
“in the year.” By these means he was able to reconstruct an initial “In
the thirtieth year … Ezekiel … received a communication from Yahweh … ”
After this editorial
introduction, the first-person vision account opens with “In the fifth
year … , while I was living among the exiles …” This reconstruction
restores coherence to the text but strangely equates publication of a
book with receipt of an oracle (York, VT
27 [1977] 89). Moreover, it fails to satisfy the reader with what is a
paramount necessity in text-critical work, a convincing explanation as
to how so clear a text fell into such disorder. If such a text were
extant, it would be branded as a secondary attempt to smooth away
difficulties. Kutsch (Daten
49–54) also has conjectured that the two dates relate to Jehoiachin’s
exile: they represent originally independent superscriptions, vv 1, 3b and vv 2–3a. The first introduced the theophany narrative in v 4–28a and belonged to the end of Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry, while the second prefaced the call narrative of 1:28b–3:11
that reports the inauguration of his ministry. However, this separation
puts asunder what in form-critical terms belongs together.
If one equates the thirtieth year with the royal date in v 2, as the present text obviously intends us to do, it refers to 593 b.c.
Working back, one arrives at the year 623. Jewish tradition,
represented by the Targum and Jerome, accordingly interpreted in terms
of Josiah’s reform and the finding of the book of the Torah in the
temple in 621 (so Herrmann 10). Nobile (Anton 59 [1984] 396–99) has traced links between 2 Kgs 22–23
and the book of Ezekiel. But why this fact should have been so crucial
for dating Ezekiel’s vision or call remains unexplained. So does the
supposition that it could have been regarded as self-evident, with no
need of explicit clarification.
Another hypothesis links the thirtieth year with the apparent reference to jubilee year chronology in 40:1.
The deportation under Jehoiachin is identified as the halfway point in
a fifty-year cycle, five years after which Ezekiel received his call
(25 + 5 = 30; Nobile, Anton 59 [1984] 399–402).
The
most plausible solution, one that requires the fewest assumptions or
the least reading into the text, is to relate the tantalizing
chronological reference to Ezekiel’s age at the time of this
experience, an explanation that goes back to Origen. Strictly one
requires a fuller text, either the prefixing of בן “son of,” the standard idiom for age, which Kraetzschmar (4) proposed to insert, or the addition of לחיי “of my life,” in line with Gen 7:11, as K. Budde (ExpTim 12 [1900] 39–40) urged. In JBL 50 (1931) 29–30 he tentatively suggested emending שׁנה “year” to שָׁנַי “of my years” (cf.
BHK). However, S. G. Taylor (TynBul 17 [1966] 119–20) has drawn attention to the briefer text of Gen 8:13, which in dependence on the more explicit Gen 7:6, 11,
merely refers to the year, month, and day, with obvious reference to
Noah’s age. Here there are no preceding standard references, and it
must remain a moot point whether in their absence one may find an
unambiguous allusion to the prophet’s age. Yet if one works with the
assumption that the text has been correctly transmitted and that it is
meaningful as it stands, it can least unreasonably be understood as a
poor way of expressing age. Our knowledge of the Jerusalem priesthood
does not permit us to judge whether the age of thirty was
professionally significant (cf. the age of ordination in Num 4; 1 Chr 23:3).
The
general location of the vision is indicated by the reference to
Ezekiel’s belonging to the group of deportees residing near the Kebar
Canal. Other texts, 3:23 and 43:3, along with the editorial 1:3a, clarify that the vision occurred at the bank of the canal, which was some distance away from the actual settlement according to 3:15. In the light of Ps 137:1–2; Acts 16:13,
it is possible that the place was used for worship, the cleansing
presence of water serving to mitigate the uncleanness of a foreign land
(cf.
Amos 7:17). At any rate the parallel of Daniel’s angelophany at the bank of the Tigris (Dan 10:4) suggests that such a location was judged worthy of a visual revelation.
The Kebar Canal is mentioned in two fifth-century b.c.
texts relating to the banking firm of Murashu, one of which indicates
that it ran in the vicinity of the city of Nippur. Accordingly it can
no longer be identified with the major artery šaṭṭ-en-nil, which flowed through Nippur (so, e.g.,
Cooke 4–5; Zimmerli 112). It was part of a complex network of canals
that came into being in the Mesopotamian heartland to provide
artificial irrigation from the Euphrates and, to a lesser extent, the
Tigris for the grain crops and date orchards, and also, in the case of
larger watercourses, transportation of these and other goods. In the
fifth century the large estate of a royal prince, Prince Manuštanu was situated in the area between Nippur and the Kebar Canal (cf. Vogt, Bib 39 [1958] 211–16 = Untersuchungen 26–31; R. Zadok, Israel Oriental Studies 8 [1978] 266–332; R. M. Adams, Heartlands
176–78, 186–88). Various groups of national exiles were eventually
settled in the Nippur area, in a neo-Babylonian program to rehabilitate
the region after its depopulation from the wars with Assyria in the
seventh century (cf. Zadok, Israel Oriental Studies 8 [1978] 326; Ephal, Or 47 [1978] 80–82).
The
opening of the heavens is an expression that occurs here first and has
influenced a number of later visionary and apocalyptic texts, in the
sense of glimpsing of a heavenly scene or witnessing the descent of a
heavenly being (e.g., 3 Macc 6:18; 2 Bar 22:1; T. Lev. 5:1; Matt 3:16; Acts 7:56; Rev 19:11). It here refers to the preliminaries of a theophany. It is tantamount to the tearing (קרע) of the heavens in Isa 63:19(64:1) and to the spreading open (נטה, הטה) of the heavens like the curtains of a tent in 2 Sam 22:10 = Ps 18:10(9); Ps 144:5 for the same purpose (cf. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, MA: Howard University, 1973] 159 n.
59). It thus prepares fittingly for the theophany Ezekiel is about to
experience. However, the choice of verb seems to add a particular
nuance. In the OT the “windows” or floodgates of heaven were opened to
permit the sending down of either blessing (2 Kgs 7:2; Mal 3:10) or judgment (Gen 7:11; Isa 24:18) (see F. Lentzen-Deis, Bib 50 [1969] 303). The subsequent content of the vision will make clear that here a revelation of judgment is in view.
The Heb.
מראות אלהים
might here be interpreted “vision(s) of God,” that is, a vision in
which God was seen. However, it is a fixed phrase in Ezekiel, occurring
also in 8:3; 40:2,
in contexts where divinely given visions are in view. This latter
meaning is to be adopted here for the sake of consistency. It was a
vision “no mortal eye could see without divine help” (Greenberg 41).
2–3a This material has an intrusive ring, as its third-person reference to Ezekiel indicates. One might regard v 2 as a text-critical gloss, as Herrmann (1) and Lang (Bib
64 [1983] 225), among others, have done. Its initial cue phrase
certainly conforms to a pattern of glosses that appears in the book (cf., e.g., 23:4b).
However, the random element that marks such glosses is conspicuously
lacking. The content aligns with the system of dating that occurs
throughout the book from 8:1 onwards. Thus v 2 is redactional in nature. The use of היא “that is” is the same as in 2 Kgs 25:8: the redactional intent is to provide a consistent synchronism for the dating of v 1, and there is no reason to doubt the chronological equation. According to Parker and Dubberstein’s calendrical reconstruction of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (Babylonian Chronology
28), it represents 31 July 593. The dating by the deportation of “the
king” appears to reflect the political reality that Jehoiachin was
still the legitimate monarch and that Zedekiah ruled in Judah only as
regent (cf.
Zimmerli 114–15). Understandably, it also expresses a conviction among
the exiles that the future lay with them rather than with those in the
homeland, a conviction that Ezekiel shared and endorsed in his
prophetic ministry.
V
3a seems to continue the redactional amplification. It provides a superscription, not for the book, since only one oracle (דבר “word”) is in view, but strictly for the unit 1:1–3:15.
It reveals an awareness that the ensuing vision is a preparatory part
of a larger whole in which the divine word is the significant element.
To this end it takes over the message-reception formula that
characteristically introduces oracles in the book (see 3:16b and Comment). However, it seems also to reflect a placing of this material at the head of a series of oracles (see Form/Structure/Setting).
The name yĕḥezqē˒l, which recurs in 24:24 and is shared by another priest in 1 Chr 24:16,
means “May God strengthen.” It expresses the prayerful wish of his
parents that God would care for the newborn child by endowing him with
strength, so that he could face life’s vicissitudes with confidence
(see J. D. Fowler, The Theophoric Divine Names in Hebrew, JSOTSup 49 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1988] 98, 100). A yahwistic form of the name, yĕḥizqiyyāhû (Hezekiah) “May Yahweh strengthen,” was the name of an earlier Judean king, among others (see BDB 306a). In 3:8–9 there is probably a play on Ezekiel’s name: he would be given grace to live up to it, as an unpopular prophet.
The
location of the prophet when he receives the vision is beside the Kebar
Canal, which is further defined as in southern Babylonia (“Chaldea”).
The definition of place marks both a narrowing and a widening
clarification of the information given in v 1.
There the reference to the canal identified it with the settlement to
which Ezekiel belonged; here it is the setting of the encounter with
Yahweh (see Comment on v 1).
The designation “Chaldea, land of the Chaldeans” is more specific than
“Babylon(ia),” which from the perspective of far-off Judah is generally
the location of the deportees (2 Kgs 24:16; Ezra 1:11, etc.; Jer 24:1; 28:4; 29:1, 4), although the present description occurs in Jer 24:5.
3b–4 The experience of Yahweh’s “hand” is regularly associated with the personal receipt of a vision in the book of Ezekiel (3:22; 8:1; 37:1; 40:1); in 33:22
it triggers an extraordinary divine action. It has antecedents in
earlier descriptions of prophetic experiences. The closest to the
examples in Ezekiel is in 2 Kgs 3:15, where Yahweh’s hand causes a trance in which an oracle is communicated. The case in 33:22 is comparable with that in 1 Kgs 8:46, where it relates to a physical empowering to run with exceptional speed. In Isa 8:11 it refers to the divine constraint associated with delivery of an oracle (cf. in principle Jer 20:7, 9). In Jer 15:17 it is used more generally in association with the vehement, anti-social consequences of being a prophet; similarly in Ezek 3:14 it is associated with prophetic passion. Roberts (VT
21 [1971] 244–51) has related the expression to the usage in ancient
Near Eastern and Israelite literature concerning a negative
manifestation of supernatural power, especially in sickness or plague (cf., e.g., Exod 9:15).
He has traced the prophetic development to a similarity between
physical or psycho-physical symptoms and the prophetic phenomena.
However, Wilson (JBL 98 [1979] 325) has observed that the expression belongs to the same set of prophetic terminology
as the message-reception formula. So it refers not to external
behavior, such as ecstasy or trance, but to divine possession as the
means of divine-human communication. Yet it may be noted that divine
possession here results in specific manifestation of a vision, which
may or may not be regarded as an ecstatic experience, according to
one’s definition of the word (cf. Wilson, JBL 98 [1979] 324 and n.
10). In this case the physical pressure of the divine hand is the
harbinger of an experience of a supernatural vision. Chronologically it
does not follow the seeing of v 1 but introduces the flashback describing the vision in detail and prepares for the seeing of v 4 (cf.
8:1b–2; cf. Mosis 253 n. 17).
The visionary convention of first announcing the vision with a verb of seeing and then using the transitional והנה “and behold” before presenting the vision segment is followed here (Long, JBL 95 [1976] 357). D. J. McCarthy (Bib 61 [1980] 332) has described this transitional element in terms of excited perception that conveys a strong emotional tone.
The phenomenon observed by Ezekiel is described in general terms in v 4
as something seen in the distance. Then in the succeeding account,
specific details reflect its approach. Storm, cloud, and fire are in
the OT
regular elements of a storm theophany, a literary tradition that was
basically derived from mythological descriptions of the storm or war
god in ancient Near Eastern religious contexts and already had a long
history of literary usage in Israel. It is from this latter source that
Ezekiel evidently took it. The storm god was at home in upper
Mesopotamia and east of the Tigris, where rain-based agriculture was
practiced, but not on the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates,
where irrigation agriculture prevailed (Oppenheim, “Assyrian-Babylonian
Religion” 67). The storm theophany was employed in Israel to describe
the help given by Yahweh to his servant or people against enemies. The
full form consists of two elements, a description of Yahweh’s coming
and then a description of the reaction of the earth to his appearing (cf.
Nah 1:3b–6), but often only one element is used, as here. Parallels to the present description are:
His way is in whirlwind and storm,
and a cloud is the dust of his feet. (Nah 1:3b)
Out of the radiance before him
there passed through his clouds
hailstones and coals of fire. (Ps 18:13[12]; cf.
2 Sam 22:13)
The storm wind features similarly in 2 Sam 22:11 (= Ps 18:11[10]); Zech 9:14; Job 38:1; 40:6; Ps 77:19(18). So do clouds in Isa 19:1; Pss 77:18(17); 97:2. The radiance of fire or lightning is also an element of the storm theophany in Hab 3:4, 11 (cf.
Isa 4:5).
The
theological program of the prophets included a strong tendency to
engage in ideological reversal, whereby comforting traditions were
re-used in a challenging way. One instance of this prophetic reversal
was to portray the coming of Yahweh in a storm theophany to Israel as
his victim. Thus Micah used the storm-theophany tradition to express
divine judgment on the capital of the Northern Kingdom (Mic 1:3–6). Earlier, punishment had been the lot of Israel’s enemies, and this old perspective is preserved in Nah 1:3b–8; Hab 3:3–15. It also appears in Ps 97:3–5, where Yahweh’s “judgments,” to Israel’s relief (v 8), are carried out by means of his appearing in the trappings of a thunderstorm:
Fire goes before him
and lights up his foes around.
His lightning flashes light up the world. (vv 3–4a)
One may contrast Ps 50:3–4, which shares the prophetic nuancing:
Our God comes, unable to keep silent.
A fire in front of him consumes,
and around him a storm rages.
He calls to the heavens above
and to the earth, in order to try his people.
Ezekiel
too, in the light of the context, appears to be drawing on this use of
the storm theophany to convey a threat that Yahweh poses to his
covenant people.
The “north” is an unexpected item in the description: after the opening of the skies in v 1, one expects the apparition to come straight down. In 2 Sam 22:10 (= Ps 18:10[11]), Yahweh “spread open the skies and came down.” However, a meaning “cloudy sky,” derived from צפן “hide” (E. Vogt, Bib 34 [1953] 426; J. de Savignac, VT 3 [1953] 95–96; cf. N. Habel, Job
[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985] 371), does not commend itself, if
some suitable significance in terms of the standard sense “north” can
be perceived. C. Grave (UF 12 [1980] 226–27) has argued for an early meaning “clear sky” for Ugar.
ṣpn,
which was then associated with the north wind that clears the sky. If
so, such a meaning would be possible here, although again one would
prefer a more established meaning. An oft-suggested reference to Mount
Casius, earlier Zaphon (= north), as the mountain home of the gods (so,
e.g., Jeremias, Theophanie 116–17; cf.
Ps 48:3[2])
seems hardly to fit the celestial demand of the context. Nor does the
proposal that Yahweh is traveling from Jerusalem to Babylonia along the
Fertile Crescent (e.g., Bertholet [1936] 5; Fohrer 12), for the same reason. Intriguingly, in Job 26:7
צפון
“north” seems to be used where one might expect a reference to the
heavens, but in fact it may indicate the sacred mountain, in synonymous
parallelism with ארץ “earth,” as Roberts (Bib 56 [1975] 554–57) has argued. It appears to bear this meaning in Job 37:22 (Habel, Job 515).
The celestial source of the theophany in v 1
suggests as a consequence that the northern sector of the sky is in
view here, but why should this be specified? Scholars commonly find
links between 2:1–3:1 and the call of Jeremiah in Jer 1, and indeed between various passages in the respective books. Thus in a primary part of the Gog-Magog unit, Ezek 38–39, the invader is described as coming from the north (39:2; cf.
38:6, 15), in echo of the “foe from the north” motif that appears in the early oracles of Jeremiah (cf. Keil 20). In the course of the extended call narrative in Jer 1, Yahweh declares that “from the north will be opened up evil” (מצפון תפתח הרעה,v 14). When one recalls that the same passive verb is used of the opening of the heavens in v 1,
seemingly in a sinister sense, and that a theophany of judgment is in
overall view, the exegetical possibility presents itself that “north”
carries overtones of the proclamation of evil that Yahweh brings with
him (cf.
2:10; cf. Keil 20–21; Ziegler 12). He comes from a sinister quarter of the sky.
The recurrence of the material of v 4aβb in v 27 has prompted the widespread suggestion that it is a textual gloss or redactional addition from the later description (cf., e.g.,
Fohrer 7; Zimmerli 82, 101, 125). However, the discipline of rhetorical
criticism has encouraged a more positive attitude toward repetition.
Here it seems to have important structural significance (see Form/Structure/Setting). The radiant aura surrounding the cloud accords with 2 Sam 22:13 (= Ps 18:13[12]), where such an aura precedes Yahweh’s appearance in a theophany.
A dominant feature of the vision account is broached in v 4b, an appeal to analogy, whether by means of the preposition “like” or the use of the nouns מראה “appearance” and דמות
“likeness.” The presupposition of this feature is that the apparition
crosses the bounds of the usual and natural. Human experience cannot
find plain words to match the phenomena; it can only provide
approximations to what is essentially uncanny and mysterious.
The term חשׁמל, which also occurs in v 27 and 8:2,
raises problems for the lexicographer and exegete. There are a number
of indications that support the sense “amber,” as in the kjv and nrsv. The equivalents ἤλεκτρον in the LXX and electrum
in the Vulgate point in two separate directions, amber stone and white
gold. The latter is an alloy that in Pliny’s period was made up of 80
percent gold and 20 percent silver (Historia Naturalis 33.23). The search for the right meaning has concentrated on identifying an Akkadian cognate. G. R. Driver (VT 1 [1951] 60–62) equated the word with Akkadian elmešu, which he understood as “brass” (so the reb), in reliance on R. C. Thompson’s Dictionary of Assyrian Chemistry and Geology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1936) 76–79. However, serious doubts have been raised as to whether elmešu can bear this meaning (see D. Bodi, Poem of Erra 90 and n. 41). CAD 4.107–8 is inclined to identify חשׁמל
with this Akkadian term, which it leaves untranslated but interprets in
the light of its contexts, where it is used as “a quasi-mythical
precious stone of great brilliancy and color which one tried to imitate
with dyes.” CAD 4.366–67 does not favor any connection with ešmaru, which means silver or a silver alloy. In the neo-Babylonian Poem of Erra, elmešu is apparently derived from a tree, in which case its interpretation as amber is assured (Landsberger, VTSup 16 [1967] 196; Bodi, Poem of Erra 93; for the linguistic relation between the Akkadian and Hebrew terms see Landsberger, VTSup 16 [1965] 195 and n. 1).
5–12
The blurred mass of wind-driven cloud and differing degrees of
brightness gradually resolves itself into a series of distinct
elements. The first to materialize and be noticed as the apparition
approaches is the group of four living creatures. At this point the
storm theophany becomes a throne theophany, as the vision report will
eventually clarify (v 26). Separate motifs have here been combined (Jeremias, Theophanie 63; Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 190). The throne vision had already featured in the account of Isaiah’s prophetic call in Isa 6.
Isaiah saw Yahweh present in judgment, sitting in council, with the
verdict of judgment passed and awaiting execution (R. Knierim, VT 18 [1968] 54–57; O. H. Stek, BZ 16 [1972] 195–97; Long, JBL
95 [1976] 361). At an earlier period Micaiah ben Imlah had seen a
vision of the enthroned Yahweh in session with his council of judgment,
discussing how the death sentence might be carried out (1 Kgs 22:19–22).
In line with this tradition, the throne vision that Ezekiel gradually
describes functions as a theophany of judgment. Indeed, this passage
became part of a continuing tradition. In second-century b.c. Judah, two more visions were described that spoke in terms of a throne with wheels, in echo of Ezek 1:15–21. In the Book of the Watchers the intent of the vision is to reprove the supernatural Watchers for their sins (1 Enoch
14:3; 15:1–16:3; for the wheels of the throne, see 14:18). Likewise, in Dan 7:9 the wheeled throne has a setting of a divine court of judgment. There seems to be a conscious reminiscence of Ezek 1 in its description of a theophany of judgment upon the kingdoms of the earth.
Figure 1. An enthroned deity supported by lions
While
it is not a good exegetical procedure to anticipate later material, in
this case the reader will be better served by a brief presentation of
the general picture that emerges in the description only step by step.
Keel (Jahwe-Visionen
125–273), building upon earlier work done by L. Dürr and others, has
produced a lavishly illustrated study of ancient Near Eastern and
Anatolian royal and religious iconography that sheds light on the
particular throne imagery reflected here. Four-winged humanoid figures
support on their heads a platform that represents the sky, above which
sits the enthroned figure of Yahweh. This conception appears to be a
fusion of at least two separate, well-attested traditions of religious
iconography. In the first tradition two lions, bulls, or cherubs
(two-winged animals with human heads) supported a platform above which
stood a throne on which the deity sat. The example illustrated here
(fig. 1) is an eight-foot-high basalt sculpture from Carchemish in
North Syria that dates from the first half of the first millennium b.c.
A throne occupied by a bearded god stands on a platform that is
supported by two lions held by a bird-headed genius or lesser deity.
The second tradition relates to two- or four-winged genii who support
with their upper pair of wings and/or hands the wings of the sun or
sky. Figure 2 shows a seal of the Persian period that reflects this
tradition. The upper part of the skybearers’ bodies has a human form,
while the lower part takes the form of a bull: this feature of bullmen
was taken over from the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian depiction of
skybearers.
Figure 2. Winged bullmen as skybearers
In Ezekiel’s representation, the sky-bearing genii, as if deposed from their divine role (cf.
Ps 82),
have strikingly taken the place of the thronebearing animal or cherub
attendants; they minister to Yahweh as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Vv 5–12 focus upon the skybearers and describe their appearance and role.
5–7 As we noted in Form/Structure/Setting, vv 5–7 give a basic overall description of the figures. They have a human form (v 5a), four faces (v 6a), four wings (v 6b), and—evidently—two legs (v 7a). They are described as animate beings (חיות
“living creatures”). They are “four” in number, a feature that
reappears in their faces and wings and later with respect to the
wheels. In ancient Near Eastern art thronebearers were only two in
number, whereas representations of skybearers, when freed from the
constraints of two-dimensional art, could be four (Keel, Jahwe-Visionen
248). The four figures, which are usually under the four corners of the
platform, reflect the universal power of God. This significance is derived from the four cardinal directions, “the four quarters of the earth” (Isa 11:12). The Assyrian king was grandiloquently entitled sar kibrāt erbetti
“the king of the four quarters.” Ideally, the figures stand on the edge
of the whole earth, supporting the sky above; here they have been
scaled down in size, but not in value, as bearers of the divine throne.
Their predominantly human shape, which distinguishes them from cherubim
(cf. chap. 10)
that were essentially animal in form, is qualified by the ensuing list
of deviations, in respect of their four faces, four wings, and calves’
feet. Their four faces find a partial parallel in the four human or
animal—representing the same animal—faces of gods and genii in ancient
Near Eastern iconography. Figure 3 shows an eighteenth-century b.c. Assyrian representation of a god with four human faces. Moreover, skybearers could
be depicted with two faces, as in figure 4, which shows the top row of
skybearers with two lions’ heads on a fourteenth-century b.c.
ivory piece found at Megiddo. The multiplicity of faces seems to
signify the omnipresence of the god and, in the case of skybearers,
their vigilance in scanning the earth to protect heaven from violation
(Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 230, 233).
Figure 3. A four-faced deity
The four wings, whose function will be described in v 11, can be paralleled in many ancient representations of skybearers, as in figure 2. The reference to the legs as straight in v 7a is not clear. It may simply mean that they were stationary rather than used for locomotion (Barrick, CBQ
44 [1982] 549–50). Then the description does not conflict with the
skybearers of ancient iconography, who generally had knee joints,
backward pointing in the case of bullmen. In fact, Ezekiel’s creatures
seem to be bullmen with respect to their feet. Again, figure 2 is
relevant, in which the upper parts of the skybearers’ bodies look
human, and the lower parts, culminating in hooves, are bovine. It was a
feature of neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian art to represent skybearers
as bullmen, with two legs, and such seems to be the case here (cf. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 215). In that case the older view that the legs were single metal pedestals (so Zimmerli 126) is a misunderstanding.
The
comparison of the creatures with “burnished copper” is reminiscent of
the appearance of the supernatural guide much later in the book, at 40:3. In both cases it signifies their shining appearance, as befits supernatural beings (cf.
כעין “like the gleam”), like the “two men in dazzling clothing” at the tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:4).
Figure 4. Two-headed skybearers
8a,
10–11 The next section is roughly parallel with vv 5–7;
it covers similar ground in greater detail, with an ABCD/ABC scheme.
First, the human appearance of the creatures is illustrated by
reference to their arms and hands (v 8a), and then their faces (v 10) and wings (v 11)
are described further. Their hands and arms would look as in figure 2,
except that there they are raised to support the sky, whereas according
to vv 22, 26
the creatures’ heads have that function. In this case too we are
probably to envision one pair per creature, as the four of them stood
in a square (Cooke 13).
Their faces are of four different types. As we noted above, such diversity is unparalleled. Keel (Jahwe-Visionen
231, 237) has given examples of humanoid, winged skybearers with two
heads, whether of an eagle, lion, bull, or a human being. Here,
however, the four types are strikingly combined in each being. As
Greenberg (45) has observed, the uneven formulation reflects the order
of observation. In each case Ezekiel saw a human face on the front,
which reinforced the generally human appearance, then the two animal
faces on the left and right sides, and finally, by comparing the other
beings, the eagle’s face at the back. As the Midrash Rabbah on Exod 15
commented: “The most exalted of all living creatures is the human
being; of birds, the eagle; of cattle, the ox; and of wild beasts, the
lion. All of these received royalty and had greatness bestowed upon
them, and they are set under the chariot of God” (Shemoth 23:13). But
more must be said. In their oriental setting these faces are an
expression of divine power, reflecting that of the lion and other great
earthly beings. Here the creatures are represented as supernatural, in
view of v 7b.
As supernatural beings, they are mediators of Yahweh’s powerful being.
Yet, as his supernatural servants, they also represent the concerted
best that each of his orders of animate creation can separately
contribute to his glory (cf.
Pss 103:20–22; 148).
The
upward sweep of the upper of the two pairs of wings does not serve to
support the sky as in the case of the Near Eastern winged skybearers.
The purpose of v 12a appears to be to explain their function in terms of motion, just as the echo of v 12 in vv 19–21 explains the motion of the wheels. The noise of their wings mentioned in v 24a (and 3:13) also suggests that the outspread wings are not static and ornamental, like those of the cherubim above the ark (Exod 25:20; 1 Kgs 6:27),
but dynamic and functional. The other pair of wings, as in the case of
four-winged skybearers and other divine beings in Eastern art, point
downwards and cover the body (see fig. 2), as in the case of the
seraphim of Isa 6:2, of which there may well be a complementary echo here.
12
This expression of mobility is the first instance of an increasingly
dominant concluding motif in each of the three throne-theophany
sections. In the light of v 11a,
the movement of the beings seems to have been accompanied by their
flapping wings. It has alternatively been explained in terms of the
approach of the whole apparition, within which the beings stand completely rigid and immobile (so, e.g.,
Zimmerli 121). The amount of redactional layering one espies in this
vision account determines which explanation should be followed:
certainly the presence of vv 15–21 in it dictates at least the propriety of the former for the full form of the text.
The
potential direction of movement is governed by the compass points faced
by each of the four beings. The actual direction is controlled by the
“spirit” that animates them (cf. v 21). The “spirit” of God is sometimes referred to as the manifestation of God in his omnipresence (Ps 139:7), roaming to all points of the compass (Ezek 37:9),
and that conception seems to be implied here. The divine spirit is here
the organizing force that directs the apparition hither and thither,
wherever it wants to go, as the expression of the divine will.
The
very notion of movement, whether of the whole apparition or of the
beings, strikes a discordant note against their background as either
skybearers or bearers of the throne. By their very nature these are
essentially static conceptions. In Ezekiel’s vision the basic notion
has been transformed. The storm theophany of v 4
has been allowed to determine the essential character of the throne
vision. In contemporary art the bearers of the sun or sky and the
bearers of a god’s throne were models of cosmic or supernatural
reality, which brought to the believing observer a sense of the
sublime. Likewise, the visionary prophet sees a representation of his
universal God manifesting himself in cosmic splendor. In Isa 6
a heavenly scene is superimposed upon the earthly temple; here it is
superimposed on the theophanic cloud. In apocalyptic vision accounts,
the seer is taken to heaven (cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 14:8–25; 2 Cor 12:2–4);
here the heavenly comes down to the seer via the literary tradition of
the storm theophany. The two traditions, one literary and the other
partly visual, have not simply been juxtaposed but combined in such a
way that the first has radically influenced the second. The implicit
link that encouraged the combination of the traditions may have been
the common motif of wings. In the storm theophany Yahweh travels on the
“wings of the wind” according to 2 Sam 22:11 (= Ps 18:11[10]); Ps 104:3.
If this association of motifs common to both traditions does underlie
the combination, then the representation of the throne theophany in
this vision account presumably included the motion of the beings’ wings
as the means of transporting the throne from the beginning and not
merely at a later stage. Moreover, the mention of רוח “wind” in v 4
as a constituent element of the storm theophany may have been an
influential factor in its reappearance in the sense of “spirit” in the
description of the throne theophany at v 12.
13–14 This section reverts to the storm theophany of v 4, although the mention of the living beings or thronebearers echoes the throne theophany of vv 5–12 by way of coordination. The mention of “fiery coals” aligns with the description of the storm theophany of the warrior God in 2 Sam 22:9, 13 (= Ps 18:9[8]; cf. v 13[12]). The “lightning flashes” are reminiscent of the regular element of lightning (ברק), which appears in 2 Sam 22:13 (= Ps 18:13[12]); Pss 77:18–19(17–18); 97:4, as indeed the textual annotation in v 13 may have been observing (see Note 13.e.).
Evidently the closer proximity of the apparition enables the fiery mass glimpsed in v 4 to be particularized into a pulsating core, which is compared with moving “torches” (cf. the theophanic description in Gen 15:17); it breaks through the enveloping aura of v 4 with intermittent flashes that resemble lightning. The emphasis on manifestations of fire has a negative connotation. As in Ps 97:3–4
fire serves to burn up Yahweh’s adversaries and lightning to inspire
dread in the observing earth, so here his coming with such
accouterments poses a terrible threat. The nature of that threat will
be spelled out when the divine vision is succeeded by the divine word.
15–21 If vv 13–14 majored in storm theophany while relating it to throne theophany by way of the bearers, vv 15–21
primarily continue the throne theophany theme but tie it into storm
theophany by describing the throne in terms of a wheeled chariot.
Mettinger, as we noted above (see Form/Structure/Setting; cf. also Isa 66:15; Hab 3:8), has observed that the divine chariot is an element of the storm theophany. If the throne theophany of Ezek 1, while resting on OT
literary foundations, is closely associated with ancient Near Eastern
visual art, here it is strongly influenced by the literary
presentations of the storm theophany. There is no compelling objection
to crediting Ezekiel with this composite picture. From the beginning,
the vision account combines the two motifs from different sources,
Yahweh’s coming in the storm and his enthronement in majesty (Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 190, 253). Accordingly, there can be no cavil in principle at the overlap of the two traditions in this section.
The purpose of the wheels emerges from the structural emphasis on “the ground” in vv 15, 19, and 21 (see Form/Structure/Setting).
The throne on its platform functions as an amphibious vehicle: it not
only flies through the sky by means of the wings of its bearers but
drives along the ground by means of its wheels. It is a mark of the two
distinct sources of the overall imagery that the structural relation
between the wheels and the rest of the structure is left unclarified.
The apparition lands on the ground, where indeed 3:12
seems to represent it. There is no need for the artificial conception
of a supernatural plane on which the apparition rested in the vision (Tg.;
Kraetzschmar 15; Bertholet [1936] 4; Cooke 16). Indeed, the emphasis on
earthly mobility gives to the traveling throne of judgment a sinister
potential. We are reminded of the grim message of relentless judgment
delivered by Amos, that wherever God’s people fled, whether to Sheol or
heaven or to the top of Carmel or the bottom of the sea, they would not
be able to escape his clutches (Amos 9:1–4; cf.
Ezek 5:12).
15–18
This first half of the account of the wheels concentrates on
description. The prophet’s attention is drawn first to a single wheel
of the now close and stationary apparition and then to the three
others. Their relation to the thronebearers is loosely described by the
preposition “beside.” They share in the brightness and magnificence of
the whole (vv 4, 27) and of the other parts (vv 22, 26; cf. v 7) by being compared to precious stones.
Their
construction in terms of a wheel within a wheel has taxed commentators
and indeed has become an idiomatic expression for an involved set of
circumstances. It is tempting to explain in terms of an ancient wheel
structure, a disc wheel, solid from hub to rim, with a large concentric
hub around the axle, so that the wheel seemed to have a smaller one
inside it (see figs. 122–26 in Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 184–85). However, the intention of v 17, which deliberately anticipates the wheels’ four-directional mobility (backwards, forwards, left, and right) in vv 19–21, appears intended to explain v 16b (e.g., O. Procksch, “Die Berufungsvision” 146). Accordingly, it is preferable to revert to the older explanation of a globe-like structure in which two wheels stand at right angles. Keel (Jahwe-Visionen
264–65 and fig. 190) has cited an apposite Hellenistic representation
of Mithras from eastern Asia Minor or northern Syria, in which the
winged god with a lion’s face stands on a globe that has two
crisscrossing wheels. The supposition of an optical illusion whereby
Ezekiel looked through one wheel to another behind it (Smend 12;
Procksch, “Die Berufungsvision”
146–47; Cooke 17) has little to commend it. It would be more likely if
the prophet were at a distance from the apparition, but his closeness
to it seems to be required by v 15.
The first part of v 18 is uncertain. Waldman (JBL 103 [1984] 614–18), unwittingly anticipated by Smend (13) and Weinfeld (TWAT 4:32), has taken גבה “height” as “majesty,” which would provide a good parallel with יראה “awesomeness” and is a possible rendering in the light of Job 40:10. However, the material context and the comparable use of קומה “height” in 1 Kgs 7:32, in the course of a description of wheels, suggest that גבה
is used here in this primary sense, with reference to the top edge of
the rims. The “eyes” that cover the rims correspond to nail studs fixed
all round the rims of wooden wheels, which served as metal tires, like
hobnailed boots, so that the wheels did not wear down (see figs. 123,
191, 192 in Keel, Jahwe-Visionen
184, 266). Keel has noted that their metamorphosis into eyes has an
analogy in Egyptian figurines of the genius Bes, which were studded all
over with copper nails in the New Kingdom period but later with eyes (Jahwe-Visionen
269 and figs. 193, 194). These eyes reinforce the four faces of the
living beings as an expression of divine omnipresence, like “the eyes
of Yahweh that range throughout the earth” in Zech 4:10 (cf.
Rev 5:6).
19–21. The second half of the section typically concentrates on mobility, in a development of v 12.
The description now departs from the order of Ezekiel’s perception—we
are not to imagine that the apparition, having landed, took off again
before the moment of 3:12—and indulges in generalized observation (cf.
Greenberg 52). The wheels were somehow linked with the living beings in
their movement. The impression is given that there was no direct
contact between the wheels and the beings but that the movement of the
wheels automatically aligned with the direction taken by the beings. V
17
has already implied that, while the structure was on the ground,
whichever being was in the lead, the wheels that were aligned in that
orientation moved and then stopped at that being’s direction. In
vertical, wing-powered movement, the wheels did not fall off but rose
with the flying beings. Vv 20–21 amplify v 19 by relating this double movement to the controlling “spirit” of v 12. It controlled the forward movement on the ground (vv 20 [abbreviated]–21a), and also the taking off into the air (v 21b). The change of syntactical construction with reference to the spirit in vv 20–21
serves to highlight its role in an inclusion and climax. The divine
spirit that controlled the beings’ wings in flight also controlled the
wheels on the ground and kept them attached when the apparatus was
airborne. The whole was an extension of the omnipresent spirit.
22–25 The renewed emphasis on the living beings in vv 20–21 facilitates a shift to the רקיע
that they supported with their heads. The term is a double entendre: it
represents both the “platform” or firm surface on which the divine
throne rests (v 26) and the firmament of the sky (cf.
Gen 1:6–8; Ps 19:2[1]). Here the role of the living beings as skybearers comes to the fore. The gleaming קרח with which it is compared could be either “crystal” (evidently LXX
Syr.
Vg; cf.
Rev 4:6) or “ice” (Tg.; Job 6:16; 37:10). Scholars are divided: for example, Zimmerli (122) opts for the former, and Keel (Jahwe-Visionen 254–55) for the latter. The use of כעין “like the gleam of” with “amber” in vv 4 and 27, “copper” in v 7, and “gold topaz” in v 16, suggests that a precious stone is to be preferred here.
The overall structure is evidently determined by a compulsion to revert to the motif of mobility that closed the sections vv 5–12 (in v 12) and vv 15–21 (in vv 19–21).
Accordingly, the natural continuation with what lay above the
firmament-platform has to be deferred, to make room for mention of the
flapping wings of the mobile, airborne skybearers beneath it. Again the
observation is generalized and reflective: v 25b catches up with the actually stationary position of the apparition. It reverts explicitly to the stage of vv 11–12, adding the factor of the tight formation of the flyers and stressing that only the upper pair of wings was used for flight.
Sight briefly gives way to sound. The new element of hearing in v 24 anticipates the subsequent auditory stage of the encounter that will begin in v 28b
and serves to prepare the reader for it. Here, however, what is heard
is moving wings. The noise is illustrated by a double set of
comparisons. The first, which is echoed in 43:2, here lacks the connotation of the chaotic sea over whose threat God triumphs (Ps 29:3; Isa 17:12–13)
and simply represents overwhelming loudness of a threatening nature,
like the comparison with an army in the next clause, but here in terms
of the roar of rushing water. In the second comparison, “like the voice
of the Almighty,” the roaring of the God of the storm in claps of
thunder seems to have been borrowed from the storm theophany (cf.
Ps 29:3–9; Job 37:2–4, although שׁדי
“the Almighty” is not used in either case). The archaizing divine term
seems to point to the echoing of an old conception. Once again the
mingling of storm theophany and throne theophany is exemplified.
26–28a
The final, climactic section reverts in its resumption and development
of key vocabulary to the theme of the storm theophany, used earlier in
vv 4 and 13–14,
and combines it with that of the throne theophany. The living beings’
joint role as skybearers and thronebearers is now revealed, for not
only does the platform supported by their heads represent the sky, but
it in turn supports the divine throne. The throne is compared to “lapis
lazuli,” a brilliant violet blue stone (cf. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen 256 and n. 333) that in the vision of Exod 24:10 is used of the platform on which God stood.
When Yahweh appears in a recognizable form in the OT, the human form is regarded as the natural and characteristic one for him to assume (cf.
Barr, “Theopany and Anthropomorphism” 32–33). What is elsewhere
implicit in references to Yahweh sitting, standing, or the like (Amos 7:7; 9:1; Isa 6:1)
is here explicitly stated. In this vision there is hardly any
distinction between the way in which the living beings and Yahweh are
described as human (דמות אדם “human likeness” in v 5 and דמות מראה אדם
“what looked like a human form” here). Both they and he, as
supernatural figures, only approximate to a human form; in the latter
case the element of approximation is somewhat heightened. Yahweh
manifests himself to human beings as a person in the highest form of
life generally perceptible to them.
That this revelation is the heart of the theophany vision is shown by the climactic resumption of terms from v 4 and in part from v 13. What had been glimpsed from afar in terms of a homogeneous mass of energy is now seen close up as the nucleus of the power that had permeated the whole. Moreover, what in vv 13–14
had been located inside the group of living beings is now seen on
closer examination to be associated with the throne of God. “Fire,”
“amber,” and “radiance” directly reappear, and reference is also made
to “cloud.”
The phenomena have the effect of veiling God. Ezekiel sees as if in a mirror dimly (Fretheim, The Suffering of God
90, 95). The divine figure’s lower portion is enveloped in fire, as if
by a train, while the upper portion is more clearly delineated and
suffused with a rich amber color. The whole figure is enveloped in an
aura, so that what is seen is a silhouette surrounded by light (Auvray,
RB
67 [1960] 484). The (semicircular?) aura, kaleidoscopic in its
coloring, is likened to a rainbow amidst dark storm clouds. It is
customary to compare a ninth-century colored ceramic depicting the
winged god Asshur set in the flaming yellow disc of the sun, drawing
his bow and floating among rain clouds (see fig. 5; a colored
reproduction appears in Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon
227). His head and the upper part of his body are shown in a human
shape, while the lower part is clothed with a flared skirt. A
remarkably similar conception is described here, although the rainbow
is the aura rather than being held in Yahweh’s hands. The basic
observation made above on v 4
renders it unlikely that Ezekiel would have seen such a representation.
There can be no doubt, however, that the intent is the same. The storm
theophany and the throne theophany have here been fused, and the
rainbow threateningly alludes to the bow of the warrior God (Hab 3:9; cf.
Job 20:24), from which the lightning arrows are shot (cf. v 14; 2 Sam 22:15 = Ps 18:15[14]). Can the rainbow be associated with the gracious symbolism of Gen 9:12–17,
as a few scholars have claimed? John Calvin’s exegetical acumen
prevented him from so doing. He peremptorily commented: “What
interpreters bring forward about a symbol of reconciliation is
altogether out of place” (105; cf. Höhne, “Thronwagenvision” 74, and contrast Eichrodt 58; Vogt, Untersuchungen 11; Low, “Problems” 242–43).
In v 28aβ Ezekiel reflectively sums up his description of the divine figure of vv 26b–28aα by associating with it the כבוד
(“glory,” “glorious presence”) of Yahweh. By this specification he
consciously relates his theophanic vision to an earlier tradition of
Yahwistic revelation. In fact, כבוד יהוה
“the glory of Yahweh” is a set phrase in the Priestly source, and it
seems to be to this tradition that Ezekiel alludes, where glory is
conceived as a blazing fire enveloped in a cloud (e.g., Exod 24:16–17; cf. Weinfeld, TWAT 4:28, 32; Westermann, THAT
1:808). In particular, some Priestly wilderness narratives mention
Yahweh’s appearance in glory in order to pronounce judgment (Exod 16:10–12; Num 14:10–12; 16:19–21; 17:7–10).
This tradition of a veiled appearance is only one of the traditions on
which the vision has drawn, but the priest-prophet Ezekiel cites it as
the one most important to him. Here the divine figure seems to be
identified with the glory; not unnaturally in other places the term is
widened to cover the whole apparition (e.g., 3:12, 23; 43:2).
The vision account closes in v 28bα with a recapitulation of the initial verb “and I saw” (v 1)
and with Ezekiel’s response. Overwhelmed, he adopts the body language
of shocked submission. His reflex is an acknowledgment of Yahweh’s
revelation of his glorious self. In so reacting to the manifestation of
divine glory, the prophet stays within the Priestly tradition (cf.
Lev 9:24; Num 16:22; 17:10 [16:45]).
Figure 5. Asshur as a storm god drawing his bow
1:28bβ–3:11
In the second phase of Ezekiel’s visionary experience, God reveals
himself not so much to his eyes but to his ears. The distinction is not
absolute: as the element of hearing was present in 1:24, so the element of seeing resurfaces in 2:9.
“There is a kind of sacramentalism evident in the combination of the
word and the visible vehicles in and through which the word is …
‘enfleshed’ and conveyed” (Fretheim, The Suffering of God
84). The tone of the composition changes from the transcendent to the
immanent, from the universal to the particular. The change is
necessitated by the increased involvement of Ezekiel, the Judean exile,
as he ceases to be an external observer and becomes a participant in
the divine purpose. The essential coherence between the vision and the
ensuing commission is that the God who has revealed himself in a
theophany of judgment turns Ezekiel into a prophet of judgment.
Ezekiel’s commissioning to the task of prophecy is set out in 1:28bβ–2:7. It is reinforced by the symbolic rite of ordination described in 2:8–3:3 and by the recapitulating confirmation of his task in 3:4–11.
1:28bβ–2:2a
This introductory subsection prepares Ezekiel for the prophetic
commission. Now Ezekiel hears not the noise of flapping wings but an
unidentified articulate voice that addresses him. The vocative בן־אדם “member of humanity,” “human one” relates him to the supernatural beings, Master and servants, whose forms were humanlike (1:5, 26)
but who by their very likeness were distinct from humanity. A chasm of
essence separates Ezekiel from them and especially from the God whom
the spoken words eventually reveal the speaker to be (see 2:4). Ezekiel is “a human being and no God” (28:2; cf.
Isa 31:3),
out of his league in the transcendent scene, as his physical reflex had
demonstrated. Even as the voice underlines the difference, it hints
that this human being may have a role in the divine plan. The vocative
“human one” persistently prefaces the divine messages in this passage
of commission and in fact throughout the book of oracles. It serves to
characterize Ezekiel as the prophet of divine transcendence, marked by
humble awareness of who God is and by a concern that his fellow exiles
should share his awareness.
Accordingly,
his natural response to the divine vision must not be allowed to
prevent his hearing the divine word of commission. The call to stand up
(cf.
Dan 10:11; Acts 26:16)
is an invitation to conscious participation in God’s concerns, to be
poised for action on his behalf. Ezekiel’s weakness is countered by the
enabling power of God, “the spirit-power which proceeds from God” (Keil
48). That this term does not refer simply to a subjective vigor or
courage that he felt (Greenberg 62; cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 568) is suggested by the next verb, ותעמדני “and you made me stand,” which seems to refer to an objective force that stands on the divine side of reality (cf.
37:10). It is difficult not to relate this force to the empowering of the living beings and wheels in 1:12, 20–21. The lack of an article accords with the stereotyped style of spirit-control in 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24a; 43:5, which is presumably the reason for its absence here.
2b–5
Unwittingly Ezekiel is poised and ready to carry out the errand the
mysterious voice now assigns to him. The introductory speaking can now
give way to the main communication to which v 1bβ referred.
2b–4a
Two topics are in view: the new role Ezekiel is to play and the moral
nature of the people of God. First, the verb “send” is emphasized by
its double occurrence in vv 2b and 4a. It is a basic and characteristic term in prophetic call narratives (cf.
Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7), which identified the human object as the authorized agent of God (cf.
Jer 14:14–15). Significantly, Jeremiah’s letter to the hostages in Babylon denounced prophets whom Yahweh had not sent (Jer 29:9, 31). Second, there is a concern for the ultimate recipients of the divine message. They are defined not yet as Judean exiles (3:10) but in wider terms as representatives of “the community of Israel” (בית ישׂראל),
which is a standard designation in the book of Ezekiel for the covenant
people, used eighty-three times according to Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2
564). The scope of the designation extends not only horizontally from
the exiles back to the people in the homeland but also vertically in a
series of generations (cf.
Jer 3:25). Ezekiel’s message in 20:1–32
is a virtual commentary on their sinful past and present. Their sin is
characterized as rebellion, both as an attitude and as a succession of
acts that exemplified it. The Hebrew term for rebelling (מרד) is a theological metaphor derived from a political act, the refusal of subjects to give loyalty to their king (cf.
2 Kgs 18:7; Ezek 17:15).
The present generation is defined as worse than their predecessors,
both in external behavior and in internal attitude. Externally, they
are marked by brazenness. Literally, they are hard-faced (קשׁי פנים), a variation of the usual “stiff-necked” (קשׁה ערף, e.g., Exod 32:9), intended to pave the way for the reaction they will present to the prophet according to v 6 (פנים “faces” twice; cf.
3:8a). Internally, they are strong-willed in their opposition to God.
4b–5 Alliteration links prophetic spokesperson, divine speaker, the alternative reactions of the audience, and their basic nature: אמר “say” (twice), אם “if” (twice), and מרי
“rebellious.” Ezekiel’s task is to deliver the prophetic word, which is
cited in terms not of its content but of its divine authority, by using
the messenger formula that customarily introduces an oracle of
judgment. The response of the recipients to the message of their
sovereign (אדני
“Lord”) is strikingly described as immaterial, whether acceptance of
the message or—more likely in view of their sinful nature—rejection.
The people are described as a “rebel community” (בית מרי),
a term that in Ezekiel’s oracles is a bitter nickname for the community
of Israel. The implicit reason Yahweh sets no store by their response
is that the prophetic message would be one of inexorable judgment, in
reaction to the people’s sin (vv 3–4a).
The learning of its truth would require no spiritual intuition. The
stark fulfillment of the judgment in their experience would be its
endorsement, proving the prophetic authority of Ezekiel (cf.
33:33).
A version of the recognition formula is used. The formula is especially
characteristic of Ezekiel’s oracles, occurring ninety-two times
according to Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2 564). Apart from 33:33 and here, the reality of Yahweh himself is what is to be taken to heart (see, e.g., 6:7). Here, however, the context warrants a focus on Ezekiel as his genuine spokesperson. One may compare Num 16:28
for this human perspective: “By this means you will know that Yahweh
has sent me to do all this and that it was not my own idea” (cf. Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh 49–50).
6–7
Ezekiel is fully briefed on the negative reactions of his audience, so
that their antagonism would be no shock that reduced him to panic and
consequently to abandonment of his prophetic task. He is strongly
urged—even ordered—not to succumb to the fear that would be a natural
reaction to so daunting an audience as their characterizations in vv 4a and 5aβ had indicated they would be. Unlike Jeremiah at his prophetic call (Jer 1:8, 18), he is not comforted with the promise of Yahweh’s presence or enabling: the latter assurance will, however, be given in 3:8–9. At this point, to be forewarned is to be psychologically forearmed. Thorns are a standard metaphor of hostility (cf.
28:24; Mic 7:4),
while sitting on scorpions vividly conveys a sense of shock. Their
opposition in demeanor and verbal retort was grounded in their basic
antagonism to Yahweh, as a “rebel community” (cf.
3:7). It was no reason for Ezekiel to fail to discharge the mandate of vv 4b–5. He must present God’s message in a forthright, take-it-or-leave-it fashion.
2:8–3:3
Ezekiel now undergoes a symbolic rite of ordination. Divine word and
prophetic narrative of a visionary, symbolic event alternate in a
triple sequence of explanation and deed (2:8 + 9–10; 3:1 + 2; 3:3a + 3b; cf.
Hos 1:2–3).
8–10 Ezekiel not only had to “stand” (2:1),
poised to be sent to speak Yahweh’s message of inevitable judgment, he
must also “listen” to that message. In this response of compliance, he
is categorically singled out from the rest of the people, just as
Isaiah in his prophetic call was isolated from his sinful fellow
worshipers by a physical sign of cleansing (Isa 6:5–7).
Like Isaiah, Ezekiel is set apart by a symbolic act. It is announced by
God’s strange call to eat what he is about to receive from God. On
second thought, the invitation becomes less strange, for it clearly
connects with Jeremiah’s inaugural experience, whose mouth Yahweh
touched with his hand, assuring him that he had just put his words into
it (Jer 1:9). Later Jeremiah said:
“Your words were found
and I ate them,
and your words became a joy to me,
and my heart’s delight.” (Jer 15:16)
These texts were evidently mulled over by Ezekiel, and they grew into sensory elements of his own call.
Ezekiel does not yet eat, for the ensuing narrative of vv 9–10 concentrates first on what Yahweh offers to him. The narrative reverts to the visionary mode of chap. 1 (cf.
1:4, 15). Under the influence of the sublimity of that vision, as in the case of the voice in 1:28, the mysterious hand he sees is not directly identified as Yahweh’s, although it may be inferred from v 10 (“he unrolled”) and 3:1 (“he said”) that it was. The book scroll, probably made of leather (cf.
Wiseman, “Books” 1:32), was unusually inscribed on the back as well as
the front and so was totally filled. Ezekiel could observe the sinister
title “laments, mourning, and woe” at the top of the scroll as its
first length was unrolled. The scroll symbolizes the prophetic oracles
Ezekiel was to deliver and presupposes a custom of preserving a
prophet’s messages in written form (cf.
Jer 36:4, 32; 45:1; cf. E. F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll
50–51). The title refers not to the content of the prophetic revelation
but obliquely to its effect. Although laments in the literary sense
feature in Ezekiel’s prophesying (see 19:1, 14; 26:17; 27:2, 32; 28:12; 32:12–16), they are not in view here. Apart from 19:1, 14
they occur in oracles to other nations, whereas his own people are
envisioned here. The terms, piled up in an overwhelming manner, feature
as a reaction to extreme suffering (cf.
21:11–12, 17[6–7, 12]).
They allude to oracles of judgment, such as Ezekiel delivered during
the first seven years of his prophetic service, till the fall of
Jerusalem in 587 b.c..
3:1–2
Having clarified what Ezekiel was to eat, Yahweh can reissue his
initial command and in the same breath interpret the symbolic act as a
preparation for a prophetic ministry to God’s people. The mention of the target traces an arc back to the initial announcement of 2:3
and serves to establish that the “laments, mourning, and woe,” with
which the scroll is crammed full, connote the message of intense
punishment deserved by his chronically rebellious people (cf.
Isa 1:4–6). Ezekiel proceeds to comply with the first order by opening his mouth, and Yahweh feeds him.
3
Here the symbolic drama of word and deed might have ended. But it
continues, with a command that the scroll given by God be swallowed
down and digested. In the words of the Episcopal Prayer Book collect,
he is to “mark, learn and inwardly digest” the divine oracles and make
them his own. In the final snatch of narrative, there is nothing left
for Yahweh to do. It remains for Ezekiel to comply. He evidently
swallows what is still in his mouth and so is able to take another
mouthful. In this complying he observes its ironic sweetness. What in
terms of content would have been unpalatable as the bread of adversity (cf.
Note
3:14.c.), in terms of his willingness to receive it as God’s word was sweet, like the “heart’s delight” of Jeremiah (Jer 15:16; cf.
Ps 119:103). He has opened his life to the divine will and undertaken to submit his own will to his Lord’s (cf.
24:16–17, 24; cf.
John 4:34).
He has committed himself to a prophetic ministry that will invoke
hostility and rejection, but the privilege far outweighs such hardship (cf.
Phil 1:29).
4–11
Yahweh’s visionary communication closes on a note of confirmation that
echoes much of the foregoing, often in a heightened form (cf. Greenberg 73). Ezekiel’s prophetic role to Israel (vv 4bα, 11a) and his obligation to Yahweh (vv 4bβ, 11b)
are reaffirmed in a literary framework. The bulk of the confirmation is
devoted to preparing him for Israel’s negative reception (vv 5–9), while his own obligation to Yahweh is restated (v 10).
4 The basic message “I am sending you to the community of Israel” (2:3) is reaffirmed in terms of its restatement in 3:1,
“go and speak to the community of Israel.” The restatement shifts the
emphasis from Yahweh’s appointment to Ezekiel’s responsibility, in this
new triangular relationship between God, prophet, and people. A key
part of this responsibility is to transmit the divine messages
accurately: here the injunction of 2:7a recurs.
5–9 The continuation of the basic message in 2:3–4a was concerned with Israel’s fundamental rejection of Yahweh, while the context of 2:7a
had to do with Ezekiel’s hostile reception in the constituency to which
he was being sent and with the need for an unflinching commitment to
his task (2:6).
These two themes are now developed together. The three parties of
Yahweh, Ezekiel, and Israel would be split adversarially: Israel vs.
Yahweh and Ezekiel.
5–7 Whereas the sinfulness of the community of Israel had been defined vertically in 2:3b–4a, with the effect of intensifying that of the present generation, now in vv 5–7aα
there is a horizontal contrast, between the community of Israel and
other nations. The initial “for” is used subtly, as often in Hebrew (cf.
BDB
473b, 474a). Greenberg (68) has seen a simple causal link: the message
may be spoken to Israel verbatim because a common language is shared.
But if the text of vv 5–6 is understood as in the translation, it introduces an obstacle to the prophet’s mission presented in v 7. Then vv 5–7
give an underlying reason why the exhortation that the prophet be
faithful to his task is needed. The sense is virtually “despite the
fact that.”
The nation of v 5 is presumably Babylonia: the first phrase, rendered “whose speech is incomprehensible,” occurs in Isa 33:19, where it refers to the dominant nation of Assyria. Correspondingly the “many peoples” of v 6 seem to refer to ethnic groups of exiles who had been concentrated in the Nippur region (cf.
Zimmmerli 137). By comparison with God’s people, all such would have
made the effort to overcome the language barrier and understand what
the prophet was saying. Jesus made a similar point concerning the
rejection of his miracles in local towns: Tyre and Sidon would have
repented, whereas Chorazin and Bethsaida had not. Even Sodom would have
survived, had it seen the miracles that Capernaum despised (Matt 11:2, 23)! Within the OT, in the book of Jonah the people of Nineveh are portrayed as responsive to God’s word, while the prophet had been recalcitrant.
There
is none so deaf as the person who does not want to hear. Israel’s
unnatural unresponsiveness would not result from a lack of
understanding but from a spiritual barrier, a deliberate refusal.
Ezekiel’s experience would conform to a prophetic tradition represented
especially by Isaiah (see Isa 1:19–20; 28:12; 30:9, 15).
It would not be the fault of Ezekiel; it would reflect Israel’s
attitude toward Yahweh himself. In a recapitulating echo of v 2a,
which referred to the present generation of Israel, but now with a
comprehensive “whole” that seems to gather Israel past and present into
its sweep, their confrontational nature (cf.
Jer 3:3; 5:3; Isa 48:4) and stubbornness of will are deplored.
8–9a How then could Ezekiel cope? It was a question that the commissioning of 2:4–7 had not tackled, while the ordination of 2:8–3:3
had dealt only with the equipping of Ezekiel with the divine word. Now
the lack is supplied. If Yahweh and Ezekiel are to be united in
suffering rejection (v 7a),
there would also be a positive side to this solidarity. As Jeremiah in
the sequel to the prophetic call was invested with the strength of a
fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls (Jer 1:18–19a),
so Ezekiel is now steeled to confront his opponents without flinching.
By divine enabling he would live up to the prayerful wish embodied in
his name ([ים]חזק “stern, hard, strong”; יחזקאל
“May God strengthen”). Hardened in sin as the people were, they would
meet their match in his resolute hardness in standing firm for God.
Like diamond, the hardest substance known, he would resist their
browbeating.
9b Thus there would be no room for fear. The first pair of negative commands in 2:6
can now be restated in terms of promises. The closing reference to
Israel’s nickname, “rebellious community,” taken from the end of 2:6, makes a fitting climax to a section that has emphasized their negative response.
10
Ezekiel also had a part to play in this partnership with Yahweh. His
prophetic ministry must be in tune with his rite of ordination. Two
lessons are drawn. First, the once-for-all command to digest the scroll
in 3:3a
was to find a constant counterpart in his inner acceptance of God’s
messages. Second, the command to “hear” in that sacramental rite, which
was symbolically interpreted as eating with one’s mouth (2:8), must be a watchword for his future ministry.
11 The conclusion functions basically as a parallel to v 4b, in a framework for the divine speech of confirmation. Ezekiel is sent back into the exilic community to which he belonged (cf.
1:1a). The phrase “community of Israel” of v 4b
and elsewhere is now grounded in its local Judean representatives among
whom he is to exercise his prophetic ministry. (No mention, be it
noted, is made of any ministry in Palestine.) The command to echo Yahweh’s own words in v 4bβ is varied by use of the synonymous messenger formula, borrowed from 2:4b–5aα.
It makes for a more forceful ending, for it brings with it the
shoulder-shrugging alternatives that provide a devastating throwaway
line. The messages entrusted to the prophet were to be bad news of
inexorable judgment. The verdict had already been passed by the divine
judge. It was Ezekiel’s task to notify those who had been found guilty.
12–15
Ezekiel’s visual and auditory encounter with Yahweh is drawn to a close
with a final narrative that by its echoes of earlier parts of the story
provides a literary winding down (see Form/Structure/Setting).
12–13 The translocation of Ezekiel by the spirit is the first of a number of such experiences (see 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5; cf.
37:1). V 14
will continue the topic, but first the departure of the apparition is
recorded, in terms of sounds heard. It is implied that it had stood
stationary on the ground since the point of 1:15. The term כבוד יהוה “the glory of Yahweh,” which had been used in 1:28
to describe the enthroned divine figure, is evidently employed here as
a literary shorthand to refer to the whole apparition. Its “standing
place” (מקום) corresponds to the similar verb עמד “stand” in v 23 and to its use with reference to the stationary apparition in 1:21, 25. The noise is explained in v 13. The noise of the flapping wings corresponds to that heard in 1:24.
Only here is there mention of the (squeaking, rumbling) noise of the
wheels. Does it refer to a taxiing, as if along a runway, before
takeoff? Strictly one expects the wheels to have been heard before the
wings. Perhaps the louder noise is explained first, unless the wings
flapped even when the apparition was moving on the ground. The stem רעשׁ, here rendered “pulsating sound,” is used of the noise of war chariots in Jer 47:3 and of their wheels in Nah 3:2.
14–15 The description of Ezekiel’s translation is now resumed. Significantly, the verb נשׂא “lift up” is used in 1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16 (cf.
Acts 8:39), with reference to a belief that Elijah could be physically removed by the “spirit of Yahweh,” while the second verb לקח “take away” occurs in 2 Kgs 2:3
in the same sense, with Yahweh as subject. The language used evokes
preclassical prophetic experiences and characterizes Ezekiel with
authoritative credentials as an old-world prophet of the stature of
Elijah. Since these older passages seem to be in view, the spirit
should be understood as Yahweh’s, as explicitly in 37:1.
The
action of the spirit is associated with a fresh experience of the “hand
of Yahweh.” In literary terms it echoes the visionary associations of 1:3b, but in meaning the usage recalls supernatural aid involved in the movement of Elijah from Carmel to Jezreel (1 Kgs 18:46).
By such language Ezekiel further claims that the dynamic intervention
of Yahweh in Elijah’s experience had been re-created in his own (cf. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets
13–16, 28–37). The supernatural phenomenon had an effect on his mind as
well as his body, an emotional excitement that gripped him as the
subjective effect of Yahweh’s strong hand upon him.
The
supernatural journey ends at his exilic settlement, which was evidently
some distance away from the scene of the vision. It is identified as
Tel Abib, which in Akkadian refers to a very ancient mound, a site
believed to have been destroyed by the primeval flood (abūbu; cf.
CAD 1:78a). It is psychologically true to life that the excitement of v 14 gives way to the exhaustion of v 15. The overwhelming experience of vision (cf.
1:28b) and call that he had undergone left him “disoriented” for a whole week.
In
a rhetorical sense the account has been neatly rounded off. Yet the
conclusion also ironically leaves the reader with a sense of
incompleteness and suspense. The commissioned prophet is left stunned
and withdrawn! He comes to the exiles, the specific targets of
Ezekiel’s commission in v 11, and yet he is speechless. He has arrived back “among them,” where he was to be a prophet (2:5), and he communicates nothing. The time limitation resolves the non sequitur. It conveys a sense of an intermission. The narrative halts in its tracks, waiting for a fresh momentum that will surely come.
Explanation
The vision report in chap. 1 has had a profound effect on its readers down the ages. By the time the book of Sirach was written, about 180 b.c., Ezekiel was remembered as the prophet who “saw a vision and described the different parts of the chariot” (Sir 49:8). For centuries the mystical side of Judaism was fired by the vision (cf. Scholem, Jewish Mysticism 40–79; Gruenwald, Merkabah Mysticism
29–97). The task of exegesis is to put divine revelation in its ancient
setting by explaining its cultural context. If modern readers think of
a spaceship when they read the vision, and an earlier generation
thought of an airship (cf.
Gaebelein 22), it is reasonable to ask what Judean exiles in
sixth-century Babylonia would have thought of it. Biblical revelation
is essentially clothed in cultural dress; its cultural elements, which
were intended to convey what is new by what is known, deserve respect.
Yet Ezekiel distanced himself from actually identifying what he saw
with his own culturally conditioned descriptions, as his constant
recourse to analogy indicates (cf. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll 84–85).
Modern
study has somewhat robbed the vision of its uniqueness and strangeness.
For instance, it has focused on the unity between the divine vision of
chap. 1 and the divine word of 2:1–3:11,
as a double witness to the prophetic role of Ezekiel. By Ezekiel’s time
the vocation to be a prophet had been graced by a special experience of
theophany, a combination of divine vision and audition through which
the prophetic commission was issued. The experience to which Ezekiel
bears personal testimony in this account was like that of Isaiah in
that it was a vision of Yahweh’s heavenly throne of judgment (Isa 6:1–5).
But whereas in Isaiah’s vision the heavenly scene was superimposed upon
the temple, here it is projected on a storm theophany. The literary
motif of the storm theophany was a separate tradition that connoted the
coming of the warrior God to help his people—or, in a prophetic
reversal of meaning, to judge them. It is in this latter sense that the
storm-theophany motif is used here: the vision combines the two
literary motifs of storm theophany and throne theophany, with their
common theme of judgment. The throne scene is depicted in a highly
developed form strongly influenced by visual art. The nature of
Israel’s God has been presented via ancient Near Eastern religious
iconography. The artistic conceptions of the sky god supported by his
divine four-winged, humanoid bearers and of the enthroned god, the
platform of whose throne rests upon two animal bearers, are borrowed
and blended, in an effort to express the universal dominion and majesty
of Yahweh himself. It is this heavenly king who uses the storm
theophany to come to earth on a representation of his celestial throne, to appear to the Judean exile Ezekiel.
There
is a sustained and increasing emphasis on the mobility of the
apparition. The caryatidlike skybearers and thronebearers are no longer
static but fly their divine charge from heaven to earth. The wheels,
with their orbits of eyes that reflect omnipresence, are the means
whereby Yahweh may travel the earth. It is this universal God from
whose judgment none can escape that appears to Ezekiel and summons him
to deliver his message of judgment.
The vision report adds special weight to the call account (cf. Fretheim, The Suffering of God
84–86). It reveals relevant aspects of the God who calls and so of the
word that Ezekiel is to deliver. In a metaphorical rite of ordination,
he becomes the host of the imbedded word, the inspired bearer of divine
revelation. If later in his ministry he functions explicitly as a
“sign” of Israel as recipient of judgment (12:6, 11; 24:24),
here he is a sign of the judging God, a messenger of inexorable
judgment for a sinful people. As such, he is to bear the brunt of their
rejection of God. The literary function of this warning is evidently
the same as that of Isa 6,
before the rejection of Isaiah’s ministry is narrated in the ensuing
chapters: to affirm that despite his rejection—and even because of
it—he is the authentic emissary of God in his role as prophet of
judgment. We have little direct evidence of the exiles’ rejection of
Ezekiel in this role, and this facet of his call is valuable as an
indirect witness to it. The exiles’ refusal to listen to the prophet
also serves to illustrate the sinfulness of the people of God as a
“rebel community” and so their ripeness for judgment. In their
rejection of Ezekiel we catch an echo of their rejection of Yahweh (3:7; cf.
1 John 3:1).
From
the human angle there is a starkness about Ezekiel’s call. He is
constantly addressed as “human one,” but there is something almost
inhuman about his response, or lack of it. He is no Isaiah who pleads
for a limit to be set on judgment (Isa 6:11). He is no Jeremiah who protests at the prophetic role that is thrust upon him against his will (Jer 1:6).
His “not to reason why,” his “but to do and die”! He faints in awe of
the theophany; he finds sweet satisfaction in pure obedience. This is
evidence of a phenomenon that the whole book attests, an affirmation of
radical theocentricity. Did priestly rank in ancient Israel tend to
inculcate an attitude toward God such as professional military training
does toward superior officers (cf.
1 Sam 2:35)?
Be that as it may, there is evidence that the absolute “yes” of
Ezekiel’s response to God took a psychological toll, in the
disorientation of 3:15.
Theologically, however, Ezekiel’s passive subjection conveys an
assurance that his oracles are the true, unalloyed word of God.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: Brill)
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Freiburg [Sw]/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck)
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
UF UF Ugaritische Forschungen
ed. edited, edition(s), editor
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (Stuttgart/Wurzburg: Echter/KBW)
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT
ConBOT ConB Old Testament Series
HSS Harvard Semitic Series
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW]
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament (Stuttgart:Kolhammer)
TWAT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 5 vols. (incomplete) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970 = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, tr. J. T. Willis et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974- ])
THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament 2 vols. (Munich/Zürich, 1971)
Allen, L. C. 2002. Vol. 28: Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary . Word, Incorporated: Dallas